New York Law Review

Tag: Informant Reliability

  • People v. Castillo, 80 N.Y.2d 578 (1992): Establishing Informant Reliability for Search Warrants

    People v. Castillo, 80 N.Y.2d 578 (1992)

    A search warrant application based on information from a confidential informant must demonstrate the informant’s reliability to the issuing judge, independent of police conclusions, and without relying solely on an unverified affidavit signed by the informant.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that a search warrant was improperly issued because the application relied on an affidavit from a confidential informant whose reliability was not adequately established. The police investigator’s affidavit lacked details of prior successful uses of the informant, and the informant’s affidavit was signed only as “Confidential Informant.” The issuing judge failed to independently assess the informant’s reliability. The court emphasized that the determination of probable cause rests with the judge, not the police. Therefore, evidence seized during the search was suppressed, and the indictment was dismissed.

    Facts

    A confidential informant told Schenectady Police Department Investigator Galligan that drugs could be purchased from the defendant at her apartment. The informant claimed to have purchased cocaine from the defendant but was not accompanied by police during the purchase. Investigator Galligan applied for a search warrant based on his affidavit and two affidavits signed only as “Confidential Informant.” The investigator’s affidavit did not provide details of any prior instances where the informant’s information led to a conviction or was independently verified. The issuing judge did not question the informant before issuing the warrant. A quantity of cocaine was seized from the defendant’s apartment during the warrant’s execution.

    Procedural History

    The County Court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the drugs seized from her apartment. The Appellate Division affirmed the County Court’s decision, finding that the police knew the informant’s identity and address, the sworn statements provided sufficient probable cause, and the informant acknowledged the statements. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an affidavit signed only by a “Confidential Informant,” without any determination by the issuing judge as to that person’s reliability, can establish the probable cause necessary for a search warrant.

    Holding

    No, because an application for a search warrant based on information from an undisclosed informant must demonstrate the informant’s reliability to the issuing judge. It is the issuing Judge, not the police or applicant for the search warrant, who must be satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for the issuance of the warrant.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on Article I, Section 12 of the New York State Constitution, which is analogous to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Citing People v. Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635, the court reiterated that an application for a search warrant based on an undisclosed informant’s information must demonstrate both the informant’s reliability and the basis of the informant’s knowledge. The court found that neither Investigator Galligan’s affidavit nor the informant’s affidavits established the informant’s reliability. The court emphasized that the issuing judge, not the police, must be satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for issuing the warrant. The judge must inquire into the facts supporting the application. The court noted that the police officer’s affidavit did not articulate any prior success with this informant, and the informant’s affidavits were merely signed “Confidential Informant.” The court stated: “It is the issuing Judge, not the police or applicant for the search warrant, who must be satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for the issuance of the warrant.” This case highlights the importance of judicial oversight in the warrant process and the need for concrete evidence of an informant’s reliability to protect against unreasonable searches.

  • People v. Winograd, 68 N.Y.2d 383 (1986): Admissibility of Evidence When a Search Warrant Relies on Both Valid and Invalid Information

    People v. Winograd, 68 N.Y.2d 383 (1986)

    Evidence obtained via a search warrant is admissible if the warrant was supported by probable cause established by untainted information, even if the warrant application also included information obtained in violation of sealing requirements for wiretap evidence.

    Summary

    This case addresses the admissibility of evidence seized under a search warrant when the warrant application contains information from a valid wiretap and an invalid wiretap (due to a failure to seal the tapes promptly). The New York Court of Appeals held that the evidence was admissible because the warrant was supported by probable cause based on information from a reliable informant, which was independent of the tainted wiretap information. The court emphasized that the valid information, standing alone, was sufficient to justify the warrant’s issuance.

    Facts

    A detective obtained two search warrants, one for Gates Avenue and another for Dumont Avenue, based on wiretap information and an informant’s statements. The Gates Avenue warrant was based on a valid wiretap. The Dumont Avenue warrant was based on an informant’s statements and corroborating information from another wiretap. However, the tapes from the second wiretap were not sealed as required by statute at the time the Dumont Avenue warrant was issued. The informant claimed to be a runner in a policy operation, calling in wagers to the Dumont Avenue location.

    Procedural History

    The lower courts ruled on the admissibility of evidence obtained from the search warrants. The case then reached the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant is admissible when the warrant application included information obtained from a wiretap that was not sealed in compliance with statutory requirements, but also included independent information from a reliable informant that, standing alone, established probable cause.

    Holding

    Yes, because the informant’s statements, standing alone, provided probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, and the infirmity of the corroborative proof does not invalidate the warrant.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the validity of a search warrant depends on whether it is supported by probable cause. Here, the detective’s affidavit contained statements from an informant whose reliability had been previously demonstrated. The informant’s statements regarding placing policy wagers at the Dumont Avenue premises provided an independent basis for probable cause. The court stated that while the information from the unsealed wiretap could not be used to support the warrant, its presence did not invalidate the warrant because the informant’s statements were sufficient on their own. The court differentiated this case from cases where the warrant lacked sufficient probable cause without the tainted evidence. The court emphasized a practical approach, focusing on whether probable cause existed independent of the inadmissible evidence. The court noted, “But the infirmity of the corroborative proof does not serve to vitiate the validity of the statements of the informer which, standing alone, provided probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.” The court also distinguished its holding from People v. Sher, noting that the analysis adopted in People v. Weiss (which was relied upon in this case) was not proposed or considered in Sher.

  • People v. Singletary, 37 N.Y.2d 311 (1975): Search of Student Based on Reliable Informant Information

    People v. Singletary, 37 N.Y.2d 311 (1975)

    A search of a student by a school official is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if based on concrete, articulable facts provided by a reliable informant, even if the informant’s identity is not disclosed.

    Summary

    Singletary was adjudicated a youthful offender after a search by a high school dean revealed heroin. The search was prompted by a student informant who had previously provided accurate information leading to drug-related arrests and convictions. Singletary argued the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights under the precedent of People v. Scott D. and that he should have been able to elicit the informant’s identity at the suppression hearing. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication, distinguishing Scott D. based on the reliability of the informant and emphasizing that an in camera examination of the informant adequately protects the defendant’s rights.

    Facts

    A high school dean responsible for security was approached by a student informant who stated Singletary possessed and was selling narcotics on school property.
    The informant had provided similar information on five prior occasions, each leading to the seizure of narcotics.
    The students named by the informant in those prior instances were subsequently arrested and convicted of drug-related charges.
    The dean searched Singletary and found 13 glassine envelopes containing heroin in his sock.

    Procedural History

    Singletary was adjudicated a youthful offender in the Criminal Court of the City of New York based on a guilty plea to attempted possession of a narcotic drug.
    Appellate Term affirmed the judgment.
    Singletary appealed to the New York Court of Appeals by leave of a judge.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the search of Singletary by the school dean violated his Fourth Amendment rights, considering the information was provided by a student informant.
    Whether Singletary was entitled to elicit the identity of the student informant at the suppression hearing.

    Holding

    No, because the dean acted on concrete, articulable facts supplied by an informant whose reliability had been proven by the accuracy of previous communications.
    No, because the defendant’s rights are adequately protected by an in camera examination of the informant by the hearing judge.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court distinguished this case from People v. Scott D., where the information was imprecise and the informant’s reliability was not established. In Singletary’s case, the informant had a proven track record of providing accurate information leading to arrests and convictions.

    The court relied on People v. Darden and People v. Goggins, which held that a defendant is not necessarily entitled to learn the identity of an informant at a probable cause hearing, especially when probable cause rests solely on the informant’s information. The court stated that when probable cause is the issue, as opposed to guilt, the defendant’s rights are amply protected by an in camera examination of the informant by the hearing Judge. The court noted that no in camera examination was requested in this case.

    “The rule enunciated by Chief Judge Breitel in Scott D. was designed to prevent teachers or other school officials from exercising ‘arbitrary power’ by engaging in ‘random causeless searches’ based upon unfounded ‘equivocal suspicion’.” The court found that the search in this case was not arbitrary but based on reasonable suspicion supported by a reliable informant.

  • People v. Sutton, 32 N.Y.2d 923 (1973): Establishes Standards for Informant Reliability in Search Warrant Applications

    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).