People v Giraud
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 9, 2013
Supreme Court, Kings County
The People of the State of New York
against
Carlos Giraud, Defendant.
3633/12
Attorney for the People:
Charles J. Hynes
District Attorney, Kings County
350 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
by ADA Abdula Greene
#718-250-2419
Attorney for the Defendant:
Legal Aid Society
111 Livingston Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
by Naree Sinthusek, Esq.
Ezra Levy, Esq.
#718-243-6490
Matthew J. D'Emic, J.
Defendant, accused of rape, moves to suppress any evidence seized in this case as a result of unlawful police entry into his home and his illegal arrest there (Payton v New York, 445 US 573; Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643).
STATEMENT OF FACT
On April 27, 2012, Police Officer Anthony LaFemina was summoned by his supervisor to the 75th Precinct. He was introduced to the complainant in this case who told him that the defendant had assaulted and raped her, as well as threatened her with a machete inside of Two Fountain Avenue, Brooklyn. The officer observed bruises on her face, neck, arms and legs. She identified the suspect and the officer obtained a photograph from the police computer. They immediately left to arrest the defendant. [*2]
When Officer LaFemina arrived at the address, he found himself in an open lot containing industrial vehicles. A building for storage and some rooms was in the rear of this area. The officer and his partner knocked on the door for a few minutes. No one answered but he observed a latino male look out a window. Sometime later an unknown individual approached the police and asked if they needed to get into the building. He told them upon questioning that the defendant lived there, that he usually leaves for work between 10:00 - 11:00 AM but that he had not left yet.
The individual let the officers in the front door with his keys. Officer LaFemina testified that the first floor appeared to be used for storage with random tools and debris scattered about. Approaching a staircase, the police recovered a machete lying on the floor.
The officers went to the second floor and observed three rooms, all with doors open. Officer LaFemina could not remember the condition of one of the rooms; recalled another "had just toys and like garbage laying around in it." The third room he testified "was where Carlos Giraud stayed."
The officers entered that room, found the defendant hiding in a closet, and arrested him.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A warrantless, nonconsensual arrest in the home must not only be based on reasonable cause (CPL 140.10 [1]), but justified by exigent circumstances (New York v Harris, 495 US 14). That narrow exception to the warrant requirement is countenanced because of the immediacy of the situation. The warrant requirement is suspended when the press of circumstances requires immediate action (U.S. v Clement, 854 F.2d 1116). In determining exigency, courts look to several factors, including but not limited to, the gravity of the crime and whether a weapon was used, the strength of the accusation and the likelihood that the suspect is in the home as well as the ease of entry and possibility of escape (People v McBride, 14 NY3d 440; People v Mealer, 57 NY2d 214; People v Jones, 134 AD2d 451). The burden of proof of exigency is on the People (Vale v Louisiana, 399 US 30).
In this case, a visibly upset and bruised woman informed the police that she had just been raped by a known, armed assailant, which gave the police reasonable cause to arrest the defendant for the most serious and violent crime of forcible rape. Arriving at the location, they observed a man, probably the accused, look out a window, but refuse to answer their summons. They were able to enter peaceably, with the assistance of a man with keys to the location. There, they found the defendant attempting to avoid capture, obviously hoping to escape.
Under these circumstances it would have been impractical for the police to have proceeded by way of warrant and risk the escape of the accused (People v Green, 104 AD3d 126; People v Hysmith, 223 AD2d 724; People v Williams, 181 AD2d 474; People v Levine, 174 AD2d 757; People v Reese, 11 Misc 3d 137 [A]).
The People have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt that exigent circumstances existed allowing police entry into the defendant's home to arrest him without a warrant. Since the police entry was lawful, any property seized that was in plain view, including the machete found on the first floor of the building, was permissible (Warden v Hayden, 387 US 294; People v Diaz, 81 NY2d 106) and will not be suppressed.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court. [*3]
____________________________
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.
