32 N.Y.2d 923 (1973)

A search warrant based on information from a confidential informant must demonstrate the informant’s reliability and the basis of the informant’s knowledge to establish probable cause.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that a search warrant was invalid because the affidavit supporting it lacked sufficient information regarding the reliability and basis of knowledge of the confidential informant. The affidavit stated that the informant, who had previously provided reliable information leading to an arrest for drug sales, claimed that Sutton possessed 30 kilos of marijuana. The court found the affidavit deficient because it did not specify whether the informant’s knowledge was based on personal observation or other sources, thus failing to establish probable cause for the warrant.

Facts

A detective of the Town of Greenburgh Police Department obtained a search warrant for John Sutton’s apartment based on an affidavit. The affidavit stated that a reliable informant reported that Sutton possessed 30 kilos of marijuana in his apartment. The affidavit claimed the informant’s reliability was based on prior information that led to an arrest for criminal sale of a dangerous drug. The prior instance involved the informant contacting Stanley Coon about purchasing marijuana, leading to Coon’s arrest and indictment after a purchase was made.

Procedural History

The trial court upheld the search warrant and admitted the evidence seized. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the affidavit insufficient to establish probable cause due to a lack of detail regarding the basis of the informant’s knowledge. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an affidavit supporting a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant is sufficient to establish probable cause when it fails to adequately detail the source of the informant’s belief and basis of knowledge.

Holding

No, because the affidavit lacked any indication of the sources of the informant’s belief, whether on personal knowledge or otherwise, the warrant was improperly issued.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals adopted the dissenting opinion from the Appellate Division, which emphasized the affidavit’s failure to provide any details about how the informant obtained the information about Sutton’s possession of marijuana. The court stressed that the affidavit must show the informant’s reliability and the basis for their knowledge to allow the magistrate to independently evaluate whether probable cause exists. Without knowing whether the informant personally observed the marijuana or relied on hearsay, the magistrate could not make a reasoned judgment about the information’s credibility. The dissent in the Court of Appeals argued that the informant’s reliability had been demonstrated by prior actions, specifically leading to an indictment and arrest in a prior narcotics case. The dissent cited United States v. Harris, 403 U. S. 573, stating that the inquiry should be whether the informant’s present information is truthful or reliable. However, the majority found that, regardless of the informant’s past reliability, the affidavit lacked sufficient detail regarding the source of the present information, rendering the warrant invalid. The court did not elaborate further on why United States v. Harris was not controlling, but its decision emphasizes the need for specificity concerning the basis of the informant’s knowledge, which aligns with Aguilar v. Texas (378 U. S. 108).