People v. Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 182 (1975)
Probable cause for a search warrant can be established when an informant’s tip is corroborated by independent police investigation, even if the independently observed conduct is, by itself, innocuous.
Summary
Hanlon was convicted of possessing gambling records after a search of his car, which was conducted with a warrant. The warrant was based on an affidavit from a police officer who stated a confidential informant told him they saw bets being accepted at a steel plant and passed to Hanlon. The officer also saw an unknown person leave the plant and drop a package near the fence, which Hanlon retrieved on multiple occasions. While the officer’s observations alone might not establish probable cause, they corroborated the informant’s information, thus establishing the informant’s reliability. The New York Court of Appeals held that the corroboration of the informant’s information elevated Hanlon’s conduct from innocuous to suspicious, justifying the issuance of the search warrant. The conviction was reinstated.
Facts
A confidential informant told a police officer that bets on horse races were being accepted inside a steel plant and then passed through the fence to Hanlon.
The officer independently observed an unidentified person leaving the steel plant and dropping a package by the fence on numerous occasions.
The officer observed Hanlon pick up these packages.
Based on this information, the officer obtained a search warrant for Hanlon’s car.
Procedural History
The City Court denied Hanlon’s motion to suppress the evidence found during the search.
Hanlon was convicted in City Court of possessing gambling records.
The County Court reversed the conviction, holding that the motion to suppress should have been granted.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the County Court’s order and reinstated the City Court’s conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the affidavit supporting the search warrant established probable cause based on the information provided by a confidential informant and corroborated by independent police observation.
Holding
Yes, because the officer’s independent observations corroborated the informant’s information in significant detail, establishing the informant’s reliability, and elevated Hanlon’s observed conduct from innocuous to suspicious.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that while Hanlon’s observed conduct alone might be considered innocuous, the independent observations of the officer corroborated the informant’s tip, establishing the reliability of the informant. The Court cited People v. Coffey, noting the importance of independent verification of an informant’s tale. The court stated, “Thus, there was such an independent verification and separate objective checking of the informer’s tale as was sufficient to establish the reliability of the informer in this instance.” The Court emphasized that the informant’s information, combined with the officer’s observations, transformed Hanlon’s conduct from unusual to highly suspicious. This combination provided the necessary probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant. The Court also dismissed Hanlon’s argument that he was entitled to a transcript or summary of the informant’s testimony before the issuing judge, as the affidavit itself was sufficient to establish probable cause.