Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed the defendant's conviction following a guilty plea to multiple counts involving controlled substances and weapons. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that police lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry into his girlfriend's apartment, as well as his claim that the subsequent search warrant was unsupported. Relying on the defendant's recent arrest with fentanyl and prior surveillance observations, the court found the warrantless entry justified to prevent evidence destruction and determined the warrant application sufficiently established probable cause.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the warrantless entry into the girlfriend's apartment was justified by exigent circumstances
- Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause
Holdings
- The warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances and did not require suppression of the evidence.
- The search warrant application contained sufficient information to establish probable cause, so the warrant was valid.
Key quotations
“Police may enter private premises without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that an occupant has committed a crime or that contraband will be found there, and if exigent circumstances justify the entry” (at 1)
“The determination of a suppression court must be accorded great weight 'because of its ability to observe and assess the credibility of the witnesses[,] and its findings should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous'” (at 1)
Factual background
Police observed Parrilla exiting his girlfriend's apartment multiple times and, after arresting him and recovering fentanyl, entered the apartment without a warrant to prevent destruction of evidence. They later obtained a search warrant and seized additional narcotics.
Procedural history
Defendant was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant based on prior controlled buys. Police entered his girlfriend's apartment without a warrant, citing exigent circumstances, later obtained a search warrant, and seized additional evidence. Defendant appealed the conviction, arguing the warrantless entry and the warrant lacked probable cause.