 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] People v. Ventura5/6/2004
nformants alone, it would probably fail. While there were references made in the supporting affidavits to complaints by neighbors, those could not by themselves be the basis for establishing probable cause. In People v. Hanlon, Rosen and Fredericks, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 330 N.E.2d 631, 369 N.Y.S.2d 677 (1975),the Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts determination and found that the affidavits submitted in support of the search warrant application were sufficient to establish probable cause even though certain information was supplied by an undisclosed informant. The opinion is noteworthy because it explains the legal requirements for the issuance of a warrant. The opinion by Judge Wachtler provides:
"At the suppression hearing the defendants conceded the reliability of the informant but argued that the affidavit was insufficient in that it failed to set forth the source of the informant's knowledge. The defendants' motions were granted. The People appeal this disposition.
"These appeals frame several key issues indigenous to the establishment of probable cause based on communications of an undisclosed informant. The Hanlon case challenges the timeliness of the information and the reliability of the informer. Both cases question the basis of the informant's knowledge.
"Since colonial times it has been the task of the courts to reconcile the dichotomy between efficient law enforcement and individual rights. Our courts have frequently grappled with these often antithetical interests in a myriad of situations. One of the most troublesome has been the use of hearsay information to establish probable cause. Not until Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, did the Supreme Court approve this use of hearsay. However, hearsay information was only permitted where there was a 'substantial basis for crediting' that evidence. It was not until subsequent cases that the precise import of these words was developed.
"The test governing the use of hearsay was enunciated in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), where a two-pronged approach was established. The first prong, also known as the veracity test, concerns the trustworthiness of the person supplying the information and requires the affiant to set forth the reasons which led him to conclude that the informer was credible or that his information was reliable. The second, or basis of knowledge test, is directed toward the trustworthiness of the information and requires that the affiant delineate the facts and circumstances relied on by the informer in reaching his conclusions. By applying this test to the application before him, a Magistrate would be assured that the source was reliable, and could judge for himself the persuasiveness of the facts relied on thereby determining the probable accuracy of the information and of the soundness of the logical deductions drawn from that information.
"The next important case in this area was Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), which explicated the Aguilar test. In Spinelli the warrant application failed to satisfy the two-pronged analysis and was deemed insufficient. The court noted that the veracity test, either personal credibility or informational reliability, could be satisfied by independent investigation which tended to corroborate the hearsay report, but that the partial corroboration by the FBI in the case before it, could not support the inference that the informer was credible or had gathered his data in a reliable way.
"Turning to the second test, the court held that the basis of knowledge may be established in the absence of a statement recounting the man
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 New York DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|