People v Garcia
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 2, 2011
Supreme Court, Kings County
The People of the State of New York
against
Renaldo Garcia, Defendant.
4023-09
Attorney for the People:
Charles J. Hynes
District Attorney, Kings County
350 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
by ADA Stephanie Fritts
ADA Audra Beerman
#718-250-2000
Attorneys for the Defendant:
Mahmoud R. Rabah, Esq.
118-35 Queens Boulevard
Forest Hills, NY 11375
#347-276-6506
Matthew J. D'Emic, J.
Defendant is accused of attempted murder in the shooting of his girlfriend. The defendant moves to suppress evidence found in his apartment and contends the police lacked reasonable cause to arrest him. A combined Dunaway and Mapp hearing was held before the court. Testifying credibly at the hearing were Police Officer Brendan Sheehan, Detective Gregory Barrett and Lieutenant Robert Ortlieb. Also testifying at the hearing was the defendant's mother, Erica Bridget.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On April 7, 2009, Lieutenant Ortlieb was working in the 67th precinct. At about 11:30 that night he received a call from his sergeant alerting him to a shooting in the vicinity of East [*2]45th Street and Church Avenue in Brooklyn. He also imparted information that a victim of the shooting was being treated at Kings County Hospital.
The lieutenant immediately went to 376 E. 45th Street and observed blood in front of the house with drops of blood continuing up the stairs to the second floor apartment. The front door of the house as well as the doors to the apartment were wide open. Fearing that additional victims may be in the apartment, Lieutenant Ortlieb and others searched the apartment for victims. None were found, although a live cartridge and a spent shell casing were seen on a dresser and on the floor, respectively.
For her part, Ms. Bridget said she owns 376 E. 45th Street and lives on the first floor. On April 8, 2009, she was awakened by her boyfriend who was hanging around outside when the police arrived. She testified that he let the police in her house and used the stairway from inside her apartment to gain entry to the defendant's apartment.
The evidence collection unit was called and Police Officer Brendan Sheehan responded to the location where he photographed and vouchered the ballistics evidence.
Early on the morning of April 8th, Detective Barrett was assigned to investigate the shooting. He went to Kings County Hospital but was unable to interview the victim because of her injuries until April 10th. At the time she told the detective that the defendant lived in the apartment and shot her after an argument about suspicions of her infidelity, in an apparent game of Russian roulette.
As a result of an anonymous tip, the defendant was arrested on April 30th.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Dunaway
The police had reasonable cause to arrest the defendant since the victim, a known informant whose credibility could be assessed, identified him as the person who shot her (People v Sanders, 79 AD2d 688).
Mapp
When moving to suppress physical evidence, the defendant has the burden of showing the police search was unlawful by a preponderance of the evidence.
In this case, Lieutenant Ortlieb and the other police officers entered the defendant's apartment after observing blood in front of the house and leading to the apartment. They knew a victim of a shooting at the location was in the hospital, but were concerned that others who may have been shot needed help. Detective Ortlieb could not tell whether the trail of blood led into or away from the apartment.
In such a case, the police would not be doing their job if they failed to enter the apartment. Although, thankfully, there were no additional victims in the apartment, police conduct cannot be viewed in hindsight. Knowing of a hospitalized shooting victim, seeing a blood trail, and observing all of the doors to the house and apartment wide open, certainly would give rise to a feeling of exigency in the heart of any reasonable person. Again, it is the job of the police to go in quickly faced with these facts.
Under these circumstances, the police belief that an emergency existed was objectively reasonable (People v Arizona, 437 US 385; US v Chipps, 410 F.3d 438). Since the warrantless entry into the apartment was necessary for the possible protection of life, the warrantless seizure of the ballistics evidence in plain view was lawful (People v Etoll, 51 NY2d 840). [*3]
Even if Ms. Bridget's memory of the facts is correct, it matters little for the hearing. Her boyfriend had authority to let the police in as an occupant of the residence, and Ms. Bridget did not object to their entry into the upstairs apartment in the house she owned. Nothing she said negates the police testimony that blood was pooled in front of her house and led either in or out. Protection of life was a concern either way, no matter which stairs were used.
For the reasons stated, the court finds that the defendant has failed to meet his burden of proving the police conduct was not lawful and the motion to suppress is denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.
____________________________
Matthew J. D'Emic
J.S.C.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
