People v. Wright, 37 N.Y.2d 88 (1975)
An affidavit supporting a search warrant based on hearsay information from an informant must demonstrate both the informant’s veracity and the basis of the informant’s knowledge to establish probable cause.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a weapon. The court held that the search warrant was improperly issued because the affidavit supporting it lacked probable cause. The affidavit relied on information from an informant, James, who claimed the defendant received a stolen pistol. However, the affidavit failed to establish how James knew this information. The single observed narcotics transaction involving the defendant was insufficient to establish a likelihood of narcotics being kept on the premises. Therefore, the evidence seized during the search and the defendant’s admission of ownership should have been suppressed.
Facts
Police obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s apartment for narcotics or weapons based on an affidavit by Patrolman Hantz. The affidavit stated that officers saw the defendant pass a glassine envelope to a police officer under investigation for robbery. A “reliable informant,” James, stated that the officer under investigation and another person had robbed narcotics dealers of narcotics and two pistols, with one pistol given to the defendant. The affidavit didn’t explain how James knew the defendant received the pistol, or when/where it occurred.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in a jury trial for criminal possession of a weapon. His motions to suppress the pistol and his admission of ownership were denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, vacated the conviction, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the indictment.
Issue(s)
Whether the affidavit provided probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant for either narcotics or weapons in the defendant’s apartment.
Holding
No, because the affidavit failed to establish a sufficient basis for the informant’s knowledge that the defendant possessed a stolen pistol, and the single narcotics transaction was insufficient to establish probable cause that narcotics were present in the defendant’s apartment.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that when an affidavit relies on hearsay from an informant, it must satisfy two prongs: (1) the informant’s veracity and (2) the basis of the informant’s knowledge. While James’ statement against penal interest could establish his credibility, the affidavit failed to reveal the basis for his knowledge regarding the defendant’s possession of the pistol. The affidavit did not clarify whether James personally witnessed the transfer or learned about it through another source. The court cited People v. Hendricks, 25 N.Y.2d 129 (1969) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969), noting that the magistrate could not rely on James’ statement without knowing its foundation.
The court also determined that the affidavit lacked probable cause to believe narcotics were present in the defendant’s apartment. The single narcotics transaction observed by Hantz was not linked to the defendant’s residence, and it didn’t demonstrate that the defendant was a large-scale dealer or user. As the court stated, “Wright’s giving Antomez one glassine envelope did not establish him as a large-scale dealer or user likely to have narcotics on his premises.”
Because the warrant lacked probable cause, the pistol and the defendant’s admission of ownership obtained as a result of the illegal search should have been suppressed. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the indictment.