People v. Rogers case brief
708 N.Y.S.2d 795
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
708 N.Y.S.2d 795
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant
appealed the judgment of the Kings County Supreme Court (New York),
which convicted defendant of four counts of abandoning animals, N.Y.
Agric. & Mkts. Law. § 355.
FACTS: Defendant was convicted of abandoning animals, N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law. § 355. On appeal, defendant argued that agents unlawfully entered the subject premises without a warrant, and that evidence did not support the conviction. The court affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that a warrantless search could be conducted under the emergency doctrine, where there was a substantial threat of imminent danger to either life, health, or property. Further, the court noted that entry into the closed store was not for the purpose of initiating a criminal investigation, but was rather to rescue the animals inside. Thus, the court concluded the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the entry and search of the pet shop. Additionally, the court noted the People established that defendant had custody and control of the subject animals and that the animals were abandoned. Therefore, the court was satisfied the evidence supported the conviction.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment of conviction because the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the entry and search of the pet shop. Further, the court was satisfied the evidence supported the conviction.
FACTS: Defendant was convicted of abandoning animals, N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law. § 355. On appeal, defendant argued that agents unlawfully entered the subject premises without a warrant, and that evidence did not support the conviction. The court affirmed the conviction. The court reasoned that a warrantless search could be conducted under the emergency doctrine, where there was a substantial threat of imminent danger to either life, health, or property. Further, the court noted that entry into the closed store was not for the purpose of initiating a criminal investigation, but was rather to rescue the animals inside. Thus, the court concluded the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the entry and search of the pet shop. Additionally, the court noted the People established that defendant had custody and control of the subject animals and that the animals were abandoned. Therefore, the court was satisfied the evidence supported the conviction.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment of conviction because the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the entry and search of the pet shop. Further, the court was satisfied the evidence supported the conviction.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment