People v. Hanlon, 41 N.Y.2d 147 (1976)
Probable cause to search must be established on the face of a warrant application; it cannot be supplemented by unsworn, unwritten, and unrecorded details presented to the issuing magistrate.
Summary
Hanlon was convicted of manslaughter after pleading guilty, following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the search warrant was improperly issued because the affidavit supporting it lacked probable cause and was supplemented with unsworn information. The court held that probable cause must be established within the four corners of the affidavit supporting the warrant application and cannot be based on unrecorded, unsworn testimony given to the issuing magistrate. The court also rejected the argument that the search was justified as incident to a lawful arrest.
Facts
A police detective obtained a search warrant for Hanlon’s premises. The affidavit supporting the warrant suggested evidence of a crime might be found there but provided minimal probative information in conclusory terms. The Town Justice who issued the warrant also received unsworn, unwritten, and unrecorded details of the investigation from the detective.
Procedural History
The defendant’s motion to suppress evidence was denied. Following presentation of some evidence at trial, Hanlon pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree. He appealed the judgment of conviction. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the affidavit supporting the search warrant established probable cause.
2. Whether unsworn, unwritten, and unrecorded details presented to the issuing magistrate can supplement a deficient affidavit to establish probable cause.
3. Whether the search can be justified as incident to a lawful arrest, even if the search warrant was invalid.
Holding
1. No, because the affidavit only obliquely suggested that evidence of the crime may be found at defendant’s premises and set forth what little may be considered probative in the most conclusional terms.
2. No, because CPL 690.40, subd 1 requires a showing of probable cause on the face of the affidavit and any supplementation must be sworn and recorded.
3. No, because under these circumstances, a warrantless arrest was neither necessary nor permissible and the inadmissible evidence resulting from an invalid search warrant may not be resurrected by a belated claim that there was probable cause to arrest without a warrant.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals determined that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause because it lacked specific details and relied on conclusory statements. The court emphasized that probable cause must be demonstrated on the face of the affidavit. Supplementing the affidavit with unsworn, unwritten, and unrecorded details violated CPL 690.40(1) and undermined the integrity of the warrant application process. The court cited People v. Brown, 40 NY2d 183. The court stated, “For whatever reason, the Town Justice accepted this information without an oath and without making a record and facts were omitted which may have made sufficient the affidavit prepared at his direction. Thus, there is no adequate record of these facts.”
The court further reasoned that the search could not be justified as incident to an arrest. While probable cause to arrest may exist independently of a search warrant (citing People v. Green, 33 NY2d 496), the court found that a warrantless arrest was not necessary or permissible in this case. Allowing a search based on a later claim of probable cause to arrest would circumvent the protections of the Fourth Amendment and the warrant requirement. The court cited People v. Perel, 34 NY2d 462, 468, noting that the arrest would not justify a full-blown warrantless search of the defendant’s home.