NY1: Gunshot through floor from apartment above was exigency

Exigency justified entry into defendant’s apartment. The tenant below called 911 to report a shooting down through his ceiling and gunshots above. People v. Santiago, 2026 NY Slip Op 03398 (1st Dept. June 2, 2026).

“Ms. Sandoval next asserts that officers from the Nampa Police Department violated her Fourth Amendment rights by ‘engag[ing] in detention and enforcement actions regarding asking questions in high risk and unsafe situations (during traffic stops etc.) about plaintiffs at the time boyfriend.’ Dkt. 20 ¶ 17. She also states that this questioning put her ‘at risk from gang member retaliation.’ Id. None of these factual allegations, if true, rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation. Asking questions during an otherwise lawful traffic stop is not an unreasonable search or seizure, and the potential gang retaliation, while unsettling, appears completely irrelevant. Ms. Sandoval’s claim again consists of legal conclusions without the factual support required under Rule 8.” No further leave to amend. This is the third try. Sandoval v. Idaho Dep’t of Health, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120609 (D. Idaho June 1, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.