People v. De Bour назва, 44 N.Y.2d 663 (1978)

A minor discrepancy in a search warrant’s description of the premises to be searched is not fatal if the warrant names the occupant, the police are led to the correct apartment by an informant, the occupant confirms their identity, and the warrant is amended before the search.

Summary

This case addresses the issue of a discrepancy in a search warrant and whether it invalidates the search. The Court of Appeals held that a minor error in the apartment number listed on a search warrant did not invalidate the search because the warrant also named the occupant, an informant led the police to the correct apartment, the occupant confirmed their identity, and the warrant was amended before the search was conducted. The court emphasized the practical aspects of the situation, focusing on the fact that the police were clearly directed to the correct location and person intended by the warrant.

Facts

A search warrant was issued for an apartment described as “25J.” However, the apartment intended to be searched was actually “25C.” The warrant named the occupant of the apartment. An informant accompanied the police to the apartment. The person named as the occupant admitted the police, confirming that he was the person referenced in the warrant. Before any search or seizure occurred, the warrant was amended to reflect the correct apartment designation, “25C.”

Procedural History

The lower court initially ruled on the admissibility of the evidence seized. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a discrepancy in the apartment number listed on a search warrant invalidates the search and seizure when the warrant also names the occupant, an informant leads the police to the correct apartment, the occupant confirms their identity, and the warrant is amended before the search.

2. Whether the prosecution was required to establish due diligence in attempting to locate the informant and produce him at the hearing on the warrant.

Holding

1. No, because the warrant also named the occupant, the informant accompanied the police to the correct apartment, the occupant confirmed his identity, and the warrant was amended before any search or seizure was conducted.

2. No, because the warrant was issued based on the informant’s sworn testimony before the issuing judge, a transcript of which was presented at the hearing.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the discrepancy in the warrant was not material because the warrant named the occupant, the informant guided the police to the correct apartment, and the occupant confirmed their identity. The court also highlighted the fact that the warrant was amended to reflect the correct apartment number before any search or seizure took place. The court cited People v. Taggart, People v. Law, and People v. Nieves in support of its decision, indicating that minor technical defects should not invalidate a search when the officers acted reasonably and in good faith to identify the correct premises. Regarding the informant, the Court stated that there was no obligation to produce him at the hearing on the warrant because the warrant was issued based on his testimony under oath before the issuing Judge, a transcript of which was presented at the hearing. This satisfied the requirements for establishing probable cause. The court emphasized that requiring the prosecution to demonstrate due diligence in locating the informant in this situation would be overly burdensome and unnecessary, given the circumstances.