“the facts known to the officers,” Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330-31, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990), and “balance the privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns,” Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 331, 121 S.Ct. 946, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001). Here, the police knew that two serious stabbings had occurred (one soon-to-be fatal), and they were armed with reliable Information that the perpetrators were among the group of individuals inside or lined up outside of the 30-30 Club. The police could have reasonably believed that the delay necessary to procure a warrant would thwart the possibility of ever finding the perpetrators, by increasing the likelihood that one or more of them would be able to get away. See United States v. Gordils, 982 F.2d 64, 69 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The police had two eyewitnesses who were able
holding that the absence of legitimate income supports the finding of probable cause in a forfeiture action holding that officers involvement in daytoday operations supports finding of personal liability holding that substantial evidence supports an adverse credibility finding if it is supported by specific cogent reasons holding that the record supports the trial judges implicit finding of nonpretextuality holding that a likelihood that the suspect will escape supports a finding of exigency