=================================================================

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

No. 3 

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Shawn J. Sivertson, 

 Appellant.

Timothy P. Murphy, for appellant.

Ashley R. Lowry, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. 

The conclusion that the warrantless entry by police into

defendant's home was justified by exigent circumstances is a

mixed question of law and fact. Where, as here, there is support

in the record for the Appellate Division's conclusion, the issue

- 1 -
- 2 - No. 3

is beyond our further review (see People v Gibson, 24 NY3d 1125,

1126 [2015]; People v Brown, 95 NY2d 942, 943 [2000]; People v

Hallman, 92 NY2d 840, 842 [1998]). "The rule applies 'where the

facts are disputed . . . or where reasonable minds may differ as

to the inference to be drawn [from the established facts]'"

(People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470, 477 [1982], quoting People v

McRay, 51 NY2d 594, 601 [1980]). The dissent's conclusion to the

contrary is based on a narrative derived from the suppression

hearing record that unduly emphasizes the testimony and resulting

inferences that are favorable to defendant.

Defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

- 2 -
People v Shawn J. Sivertson 

No. 3 

RIVERA, J. (dissenting):

As a matter of law, there is no record evidence to

support the trial court's ruling that exigent circumstances

justified the warrantless entry into defendant's home.1

Therefore, the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new

trial ordered. I dissent.

1 Despite the majority's exhortation to the contrary, I

have not misinterpreted the record below (majority op at 2). I

have based my analysis on the responding officers' express

testimony as to what they saw and did when they arrived at

defendant's home. The People carry a heavy burden to justify a

warrantless entry into a suspect's home (Welsh v Wisconsin, 466

US 740, 749-750 [1984]), and the officers' description of the

unfolding events, read plainly, falls short of the constitutional

benchmark to support a finding of exigent circumstances.

- 1 -
- 2 - No. 3

I.

Defendant was charged with one count of robbery in the

first degree for stealing a few dollars from a donation jar

inside a convenience store located near the University of Buffalo

campus. According to the testimony at the hearing on defendant's

suppression motion, 15 to 20 officers from the Buffalo Police

Department, Niagara Frontier Transit Authority, and the

University of Buffalo security force responded after a store

employee made a 911 call to report that a robbery had just

occurred. Based on images from the in-store surveillance video

and statements from two employees who interacted with the robber,

the officers developed a description of a white male in his 50s,

who was armed with a small knife and was wearing a coat, gloves,

and a scarf. 

The store manager also told the officers that she had

chased the robber across the street and through an alleyway

before she lost track of him. Several officers fanned out and

conducted a search of the area, but did not locate the robber.

Meanwhile, back at the store, two people told one of

the officers that earlier in the day they had seen someone who

fit the description of the robber sitting on the stoop of a

building across the street from the store. Buffalo Police

Officer Mayhook then went to that building and spoke with a man,

who told him that the person sitting on the stoop had recently

moved into a rear apartment in the building.

- 2 -
- 3 - No. 3

 Based on this information, several officers surrounded

the building. As they approached, they noticed a door on one

side of the rear apartment and two closed windows on the other. 

The lights were on inside, and they could look directly through

the windows at defendant, who they observed alone and lying in

bed watching television. They described the apartment as very

small, approximately 500 square feet in size, and so compact that

one officer could see a pair of gloves on the kitchen table that

looked like the gloves worn by the robber.

The officers knocked on the door and window for

approximately ten minutes, yelling for defendant to "show your

hands and come out." Defendant made eye contact with the

officers peering in his window, then rolled over and closed his

eyes. One officer said that from his view it appeared defendant

was in a "stupor." Upon authorization from Officer Mayhook,

several officers forced open the door, pulled defendant out of

bed, and handcuffed him. Once inside, the officers seized a

black knit hat, gloves, three small knives from the kitchen

counter, and a scarf and jacket.

Officer Mayhook testified that he was at the door, but

did not personally witness the defendant's actions or look inside

the apartment prior to giving the order to enter. He based his

decision to enter without a warrant on the other officers'

observations of defendant as relayed to him, which he testified

consisted of defendant matching the robber's description, as well

- 3 -
- 4 - No. 3

as the fact that the officers were unaware if defendant was

alone, if defendant could access other parts of the building, or

if there were other weapons in the apartment. Officer Mayhook

further testified that when he gave the order he knew the

officers were armed and had surrounded the building, and that

defendant was not threatening anyone.

The court partially denied defendant's suppression

motion, concluding that exigent circumstances justified the

warrantless entry and that items in plain view were properly

seized. However, the court granted the motion as to the jacket

and scarf, finding that the police unlawfully obtained these

items by opening a closed container. 

The jury convicted defendant on the sole count of

first-degree robbery (Penal Law § 160.15). Thereafter, the court

sentenced defendant to an indeterminate incarceratory period of

20 years to life.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction,

concluding, as did Supreme Court, that the forced entry was

justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances (People v

Sivertson, 129 AD3d 1467, 1468 [4th Dept 2015]). As a matter of

law, the facts do not support this conclusion.

II.

A person's home is a place of safety, security, and

uninterrupted respite from the demands of the external world (see

- 4 -
- 5 - No. 3

Florida v Jardines, 133 S Ct 1409, 1414 [2013]; see also Matalon

v Hynnes, 806 F3d 627, 633 [1st Cir 2015] ["It is common ground

that a [person]'s home is [a] castle and, as such, the home is

shielded by the highest level of Fourth Amendment protection."])

Society's interest in preserving the sanctity of the home is

reflected in the federal and state constitutional guarantee that

"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

shall not be violated" (see US Const, 4th amend; NY Const, art 1,

§ 12). History teaches that "the physical entry of the home is

the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment

is directed" (United States v District Ct. for E.D. Mich., 407 US

297, 313 [1972]). Indeed, "[f]reedom from intrusion into the

home or dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection

secured by the Fourth Amendment" (Payton v New York, 445 US 573,

587 [1980] [internal citations omitted]; see also People v

Mothersell, 14 NY3d 358, 363-364 ["(I)nnocent persons are

commonly encountered in private spaces, such as homes, and, in

fact, possess in those spaces the most constitutionally

compelling expectations of privacy."]).

To maintain a person's security in the home, it is a

"basic principle" that "warrantless entries into a home to make

an arrest are presumptively unreasonable" (People v McBride, 14

NY3d 440, 445 [2010]; see also Payton, 445 US at 586; People v

Jenkins, 24 NY3d 62, 64 [2014]). "Over and again [the United

- 5 -
States Supreme Court] has emphasized that the mandate of the

Fourth Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes, and

that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without

prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable

under the Fourth Amendment –– subject only to a few specifically

established and well-delineated exceptions" (Katz v United

States, 389 US 347, 357 [1967] [internal alterations, citations,

and quotation marks omitted]).

One such exception, relied upon by the People here, 

holds that so long as "there is probable cause, the police may

proceed without a warrant to effectuate an arrest within a home

if exigent circumstances exist to justify a warrantless entry"

(McBride, 14 NY3d at 445 [internal citations omitted]). This

exception to the warrant requirement is narrowly construed, such

that "'the scope of the conduct thus sanctioned is strictly

limited by the necessities of the circumstances in which it

arises'" (id.; see also Jenkins, 24 NY3d at 65, citing People v

Knapp, 52 NY2d 689, 696 [1981]). 

When the People invoke the exception, "[t]he ultimate

inquiry a suppression court must make is 'whether in light of all

the facts of the particular case there was an urgent need that

justifies a warrantless entry'" (McBride, 14 NY3d at 446, quoting

United States v Martinez-Gonzalez, 686 F2d 93, 100 [1982]). "In

answering that question, we must be cognizant of the [United

States] Supreme Court's admonition that 'exceptions to the

warrant requirement are few in number and carefully delineated

- 6 -
- 7 - No. 3

and that the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to

demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless

searches or arrests'" (Harris v O'Hare, 770 F3d 224, 234 [2d Cir

2014], quoting Loria v Gorman, 306 F3d 1271, 1284-1285 [2d Cir

2002] and Welsh v Wisconsin, 466 US 740, 749-750 [1984]). "In

other words, the People who seek exemption from constitutional

mandate must show that the exigencies of the situation made that

course imperative" (Matter of Kwok T., 43 NY2d 213, 220 [1977]; 

see also Welsh, 466 US at 750-751 ["(T)he police bear a heavy

burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might

justify warrantless searches or arrests."]; People v Jenkins, 24

NY3d 62 [2014]; United State v Reed, 572 F2d 412, 424 [2d Cir

1978]); accord Vale v Louisiana, 399 US 30, 35 [1970]).

Exigent circumstances, by definition, "are those

[circumstances] that would cause a reasonable person to believe

that entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer

or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the

suspect's escape, or some other consequence improperly

frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts" (William Ringel,

Searches & Seizures, Arrests & Confessions § 10:8 [2d ed 2016];

accord Jenkins, 24 NY3d at 65 n 2; Kentucky v King, 563 US 452,

460 [2011]). These include "time pressures, the emergency nature

of the situation, and the potential danger of the situation which

makes obtaining a warrant impossible or ill-advised in light of

the urgent need for immediate action" (Ringel, supra, § 10:1). A

- 7 -
- 8 - No. 3

finding of exigency necessarily depends on the circumstances

presented to the officers at the time of the warrantless entry

(see Welsh, 466 US at 748 n 9; see also United States v George,

883 F2d 1407, 1412 [9th Cir 1989] ["The exigencies must be viewed

from the totality of circumstances known to the officers at the

time of the warrantless intrusion" (emphasis added)]; United

States v Schaffer, 286 Fed Appx 81, 85 [4th Cir 2008]; United

States v Talkington, 843 F2d 1041, 1045 [7th Cir 1988]).

Various factors may assist and guide the court in

deciding the essential question of whether exigent circumstances

are present at the time of entry into the home (McBride, 14 NY3d

at 446). In McBride, the Court identified some such factors

relied on by other courts –– ranging from whether the police have

probable cause to believe a defendant is the perpetrator of the

crime, to the likelihood that a defendant will escape if not

swiftly apprehended.2 Those factors are "illustrative and not to

be viewed as definitive or exhaustive" (id. at 446 [internal

citations omitted]). No one factor, or any combination, is

determinative (id.). Courts may consider other factors, such as

2 The Court in McBride listed the following factors: (1)

the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the

suspect is to be charged; (2) whether the suspect is reasonably

believed to be armed; (3) a clear showing of probable cause to

believe that the suspect committed the crime; (4) strong reason

to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered; (5)

a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly

apprehended; and (6) the peaceful circumstances of the entry

(McBride, 14 NY3d at 446).

- 8 -
- 9 - No. 3

whether obtaining a warrant was impossible or impracticable under

the circumstances, whether any delay attendant to securing a

warrant risked what the exception specifically seeks to avoid,

namely the destruction of evidence and a suspect's escape, or

whether life or property are in imminent danger (see United

States v Jones, 635 F2d 1357, 1360 [8th Cir 1980]; see also

United States v Mondragon, 290 Fed Appx 904, 906 [11th Cir 2006];

Jenkins, 24 NY3d at 65 n 2; Molnar, 98 NY2d at 328).

 The People mistakenly rely primarily on the particular

factors that point to defendant as the robber, as well as the

gravity of the crime.3 Those factors only address part of the

analysis because, even if the police have probable cause to

believe defendant is the culprit, they may not make a warrantless

entry into defendant's home absent an urgent need to do so

(United States v Altman, 797 F2d 514, 515 [7th Cir 1986]); see

also Dorman v United States, 435 F2d 385, 389 [DC Cir 1970]

[explaining that more than probable cause is required if the

government makes a warrantless entry into a home]).

 McBride is instructive on this issue. There, the police

had eyewitness identification of the defendant as a suspect in an

armed robbery and five officers went to his address looking for

him. This Court held that exigent circumstances existed to

justify a warrantless entry into his apartment not solely on the

3 Defendant does not challenge that the police had probable

cause to believe he was the robber.

- 9 -
- 10 - No. 3

basis of probable cause to believe he was the robber, but because

of what the police observed and heard when they arrived (McBride,

14 NY3d at 444). The police saw a body on the floor of the

apartment from the window and, after they knocked on the door and

identified themselves, the officers heard someone run to the

door, which was then answered by a woman who was hyperventilating

and crying (id. at 444-445). Based on her appearance and lack of

responsiveness, one of the officers believed the woman faced a

life-threatening situation and therefore entered the apartment

(id. at 445). The Court concluded that these circumstances,

observed and considered by the officers immediately prior to the

time of entry, supported the finding of an urgent need for the

officers to act without a warrant (id. at 447).

Here, when the officers surrounded defendant's building

they blocked the door and had an unobstructed view of the

defendant and the apartment through its two windows. There was a

light on inside so they were able to look around this very small

space and observe defendant lying in bed, watching television and

apparently unaware of the presence of the police. Only after

several minutes of the police banging on defendant's door and

windows, yelling at him to open up and come out, did defendant

react by making eye contact with the officers, at which point the

officers saw him turn his back, roll over in bed and close his

- 10 -
- 11 - No. 3

eyes.4 These record facts do not support a finding that

defendant presented a danger to the police or someone else in the

building, or "a likelihood that [defendant would] escape if not

swiftly apprehended," thus justifying the warrantless entry (id.

at 446).

Although the police testified that they did not know if

defendant had access to another part of the building, they also

testified that defendant was in their sights the entire time, and

the apartment was "very small," making defendant's movements

easily visible. Significantly, defendant did not leave his bed

or try to escape when he had the chance –– from the moment he saw

the police at his windows, until the officers broke into his

home. Further, no facts suggest that once the officers

surrounded the apartment, they were unable to enter the building

and block defendant's access to the interior. Nor did the

officers testify that once they knew defendant was inside the

apartment, it was impossible or impracticable to ascertain

whether he had access to other areas of the building.

The officers' knowledge that the robber was armed with

a small knife also fails to support a finding of exigency in this

case. The officers were outside defendant's apartment, protected

by a closed door and windows, and well beyond defendant's

immediate reach. As the record establishes, the officers

4 Defendant had no duty to respond to the officers or to

open his door, so his failure to respond to these demands does

not justify the warrantless entry (see King, 563 US at 470).

- 11 -
- 12 - No. 3

maintained a view of defendant at all times, and never saw him

brandish a weapon or move towards them.

Further, although the suspect displayed a knife during

the course of the robbery, he did not harm or attempt to harm

anyone. Indeed, apparently having no fear defendant would use the

knife, the store manager chased after defendant for some

distance. Thus, this case is distinguishable from cases in which

the defendant has acted violently and shown a willingness to

injure someone with a weapon, justifying a warrantless search

(see e.g. People v Hill, 70 AD3d 1487 [4th Dept 2010]). For

example in People v Hill, the court found exigent circumstances

because when the police arrived they encountered defendant armed

with a claw hammer and the victim bleeding from the head, having

been attacked by the defendant (70 AD3d at 1488; see also United

States v MacDonald, 916 F2d 766, 770 [2d Cir 1990] [explaining

that the presence of semi-automatic weapons increased the danger

of the situation]; United States v Belisle, 164 Fed Appx 657,

661-662 [10th Cir 2005] [holding that the victim's report that

the defendant possessed a gun as grounds to believe the defendant

was a danger to the officers]; United States v Huddleston, 593

F3d 596, 600 [7th Cir 2010] [ruling that a sleeping suspect was

dangerous because the officers could see him holding a gun while

he slept]; United States v Singer, 62 F3d 1426 [9th Cir 1995]

[mem.] [finding that a knife could give rise to exigent

circumstances when a single officer arrived at a defendant's home

- 12 -
- 13 - No. 3

after a report of a stabbing and there was blood on the door];

Thompson v Lake, 607 Fed Appx 624 [2015] [mem.] [ruling in an

excessive force case that exigent circumstances cannot be found

when officer only found knives after entering the home]; People v

Wilson, 144 AD2d 980, 980 [4th Dept 1998] [mem.] [finding exigent

circumstances when the victim was stabbed in abdomen and a

bystander told police the suspect was in the house with the

knife]). Nor were any facts elicited at the hearing that

suggested that any person "may have been seriously injured and in

need of emergency assistance" (People v Doll, 21 NY3d 665, 671

[2013]).

Officer Mayhook's assertion that he did not know what

defendant was capable of doing and was concerned that defendant

might rush out and attack someone, does not provide record

support for the warrantless entry because what matters is whether

the police action is objectively justified (cf. Brigham v City of

Utah, 547 US 398, 404 [2006] [explaining that the circumstances

must objectively justify a warrantless entry in the emergency

exception]; accord People v Ringel, 145 AD3d 1041, 1044 [2d Dept

2016]). Officer Mayhook's uncertainty or speculation about

defendant's possible conduct in the face of defendant's passivity

provided no reason to break down the door at that precise moment,

rather than seek a warrant. Yet, the trial court's ruling that

an officer's subjective belief, when contrary to the record

facts, nonetheless may establish an "exigency" essentially

- 13 -
- 14 - No. 3

transformed this narrow exception into a general rule of entry.

 Our Court's admonition that "[t]he police themselves

cannot by their own conduct create an appearance of exigency"

(People v Levan, 62 NY2d 139, 146 [1984]), is particularly

relevant here where over a dozen officers responded to the 911

call and immediately took control of the situation. Given these

resources, the officers had a clear alternative course of

action –– they could have monitored the defendant while a warrant

was obtained, or waited for defendant to emerge of his own

volition. Those actions would have preserved defendant's rights

under the Fourth Amendment and our state constitution.5

III.

In the moments before the police broke through the door

of defendant's apartment –– the moments critical to a

determination whether exigent circumstances existed in this case

–– defendant did not take any action against the officers, or

attempt to escape or avoid capture. To the contrary, he simply

lay in bed, aware that the police were outside his door and

looking through his windows. Further, unlike the officers in

McBride, the police here were not faced with a situation in which

defendant or someone else was in apparent distress and in need of

immediate assistance. Nor had defendant harmed anyone during the

5 Based on my conclusion that defendant is entitled to a new

trial, I do not address his ineffective assistance of counsel

claim.

- 14 -
- 15 - No. 3

robbery or before the police broke into his home.

When the police observed defendant in his apartment he

did not pose an immediate threat of escape, or a danger to other

residents or the police. Hence, there is no basis for the

suppression court's finding of an "urgent need that justifie[d] a

warrantless entry" (McBride, 14 NY3d at 446), and defendant's

motion to suppress the items obtained from his apartment should

have been granted in its entirety.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges

Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur. Judge Rivera dissents in an

opinion in which Judge Stein concurs.

Decided June 1, 2017

- 15 -