Opinion
No. 120 SSM 3.
Decided March 29, 2011.
APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered October 28, 2010. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Franklin County Court (Robert G. Main, Jr., J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.
When three State Troopers seeking to execute an arrest warrant knocked on the door of the warrant subject's residence, defendant refused to let them in. Defendant opened the door partway and, in response to a State Police Investigator's questions, confirmed that it was the residence of the subject of the warrant. Defendant told the investigator that the person they were looking for was not there and that she had gone out with her mother, but he was not sure where she was. While being questioned, defendant looked back over his shoulder into the apartment. The investigator twice told defendant that he believed the subject was in the apartment, that they needed to execute the warrant and that defendant faced arrest if he did not allow them into the residence. Instead of again denying that the subject was in the apartment, defendant twice responded that he would not let the troopers in. As the investigator then began to turn to go to his vehicle and get the warrant, defendant slammed the door. Given defendant's inability to tell the troopers where the subject was, his confirmation that it was her residence and his act of looking back over his shoulder into the apartment, the investigator believed that the subject was in the residence and that defendant slammed the door to prevent the troopers from executing the warrant. Finding the door locked, the troopers then kicked it open, entered the apartment and placed defendant, who was headed toward the bedroom, in custody. A search of the bedroom revealed a quantity of cocaine.
People v Paige, 77 AD3d 1193, affirmed.
Gregory D. LaDuke, Lake Placid, for appellant.
Derek P. Champagne, District Attorney, Malone ( Glenn MacNeill of counsel), for respondent.
Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Whether an officer had a reasonable belief that the subject of the arrest warrant was in the home so as to demand entry into the residence is a mixed question of law and fact, which, if supported by record evidence, is beyond further review by this Court ( see generally People v Francois, 14 NY3d 732). We conclude that record evidence exists to support the determinations of the courts below.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.