Charges dismissed due to illegal police search

A state appeals court has reversed a disorderly conduct conviction because the arrest was the result of an illegal police search.

Defendant Corey Hunter pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in April 2019 in New York City Criminal Court.

Hunter’s appellate lawyer claimed the judge improperly denied a motion to suppress a written statement that Hunter made to police, and evidence of the police officer’s observations about the condition of Hunter’s apartment and four dogs inside.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Second Department, reversed the guilty plea, granted the motion to suppress the officer’s testimony and Hunter’s statement, and dismissed the accusatory instrument.

In March 2018, Hunter was charged with four counts of aggravated cruelty to animals. After a hearing, a judge rule that a police officer’s warrantless entry to the apartment was justified and denied the motion to suppress evidence of the police officer’s observations, and the defendant’s written statement.

Hunter pleaded guilty to one count of disorderly conduct in satisfaction of all charges.

In the appeal, Hunter’s attorney argued that the accusatory instrument was insufficient and that police had illegally entered the apartment without a search warrant.

The judge rejected the argument from Hunter’s lawyer that the accusatory instrument was insufficient.

On Dec. 19, 2017, a police officer went to Hunter’s apartment and saw four dogs living with feces on the floor and no food or water. One adult female dog and three . . . puppies were taken from the home, according to the decision.

The prosecution also filed a statement from a veterinarian stating that the adult female dog was euthanized because it was malnourished, dehydrated, weak, and could not walk on its own.

The veterinarian also found that the puppies were malnourished, had severely distended abdomens, and roundworms.

Hunter’s appellate attorney also argued that the judge improperly determined that the police officer’s warrantless entry into the apartment was justified under the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement, because “there were no reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency existed and that there was an immediate need for the officer’s assistance in order to protect life or property,” according to the decision.

“Upon a review of the record, we find that the evidence adduced at the hearing did not establish the existence of facts sufficient to provide the police officer with reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency existed which required the immediate need for police assistance,” the appellate panel wrote.

“The officer knew only that a 911 caller had stated that there were six dogs in the apartment that were not being taken care of, they were not being fed, and there was dog feces, as well [as] garbage, in the apartment,” the court wrote.

“These assertions do not support the application of the emergency doctrine, which is to be construed narrowly, to justify the officer’s entry and search of the apartment, to ascertain that a “substantial threat of imminent danger” to the dogs may have existed,” the court wrote.

“In view of the foregoing, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to suppress evidence of the police officer’s observations regarding the conditions of the apartment and of the four dogs, on the ground that the police officer had illegally entered the apartment without a search warrant, should have been granted,” the Second Department ruled.

The “defendant’s motion seeking to suppress evidence of his written statement to the police should, likewise, have been granted as the statement was the fruit of the poisonous tree, since it was not sufficiently attenuated from the taint of the illegal entry and was obtained solely by the exploitation thereof,” the court wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035