Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. Defendant did not establish an expectation of privacy in the apartment in which he was arrested. The record further establishes that the entry into the apartment was, in any event, justified by hot pursuit and exigent circumstances (see, United States v Santana,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
PEOPLE v. CHATMAN
268 A.D.2d 299 (2000)
700 N.Y.S.2d 818
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WILLIE CHATMAN, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided January 18, 2000.
Decided January 18, 2000.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.