New York Law Review

Tag: Informant’s Tip

  • People v. DiFalco, 80 N.Y.2d 693 (1993): Veracity of Informant Tip Established by Corroboration of Non-Criminal Details

    People v. DiFalco, 80 N.Y.2d 693 (1993)

    The veracity component of the Aguilar/Spinelli test for establishing probable cause based on an informant’s tip can be satisfied by police corroboration of non-criminal details, provided those details are significant and essential to carrying out the reported criminal scheme.

    Summary

    DiFalco addresses the veracity component of the Aguilar/Spinelli test for probable cause based on an informant’s tip. The New York Court of Appeals held that police corroboration of seemingly innocuous, non-criminal details provided by an informant can establish the veracity of the tip, so long as those details are essential to the overall criminal scheme described by the informant. This ruling allows police to rely on verified, non-criminal aspects of a tip to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest, even if the informant’s credibility isn’t independently proven. The court distinguished between corroborating the basis of knowledge and corroborating veracity, setting a lower bar for the latter.

    Facts

    An informant, Thompson, voluntarily told a deputy sheriff that Shannon was selling cocaine and offered details about an upcoming drug purchase. Thompson stated that Shannon would drive a white Chevrolet Impala to Rochester to pick up cocaine, traveling east on Route 490, and would return to deliver drugs to Thompson at a specific location in Bergen. Police observed a white Impala leaving Shannon’s residence with Shannon as a passenger and DiFalco driving, heading east on Route 490. Approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes later, the same car was observed returning west on Route 490. Police stopped the car on the exit ramp to Bergen, arrested both occupants, and found cocaine inside.

    Procedural History

    DiFalco moved to suppress the evidence, arguing a lack of probable cause for the warrantless arrest. The trial court denied the motion, and DiFalco pleaded guilty. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding probable cause based on Thompson’s information and its corroboration. Two justices dissented, arguing the corroboration of non-criminal activities was insufficient to establish the informant’s reliability.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the veracity component of the Aguilar/Spinelli test can be satisfied by police corroboration of details that are not, when taken separately, suggestive of criminal activity.

    Holding

    Yes, because the corroboration of non-criminal details, when those details are significant and essential to the reported criminal scheme, can adequately establish the veracity of the informant’s tip.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court stated that probable cause for a warrantless arrest may be based on hearsay information, but only if both the basis of knowledge and veracity prongs of the Aguilar/Spinelli test are met. Here, only the veracity component was at issue. The Court differentiated between establishing the basis of knowledge and establishing veracity, noting that corroborating details to establish the basis of knowledge requires details “suggestive of or directly related to criminal activities”. However, to establish veracity, the court held that “the independently verified details, although not of themselves criminal in nature, may not be merely peripheral to the reported criminal scheme; they must fit within the informant’s story of the contemplated crime as activities which are significant and essential to carrying it out.” In this case, the police verified significant details of Thompson’s story: Shannon would be driving a white Chevrolet Impala; the car would proceed to Route 490; Shannon would drive onto Route 490 east toward Rochester; he would return on Route 490 west; and the trip from Batavia to Rochester and back to Bergen would take about 1 hour and 45 minutes. These details, taken together, suggested that Shannon traveled to Rochester to complete a mission and returned without delay, lending credence to Thompson’s claim that the mission was to purchase drugs. The court noted, “if significant details have been verified as true it is reasonable to suppose that other details, which remain unverified, are also true.”

  • People v. Smith, 21 N.Y.2d 698 (1967): Warrantless Arrests and Probable Cause Based on Officer Observation

    People v. Smith, 21 N.Y.2d 698 (1967)

    An arrest warrant lacking the name or description of a person, coupled with the absence of probable cause for the arresting officer to believe that person committed a crime, renders the arrest unlawful and requires suppression of evidence.

    Summary

    This case concerns the validity of a search warrant and subsequent arrests. The Court of Appeals held that the motion to suppress evidence should be granted for defendant William Smith, as he was not named in the warrant, and the officer lacked probable cause to believe he committed a crime before the arrest. However, the court found that the officer’s observations, independent of an informant’s tip, established probable cause for the other defendants’ arrests, making disclosure of the informant’s identity unnecessary. The order was modified to reflect the suppression of evidence for William Smith, but affirmed for the other defendants.

    Facts

    Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at a premises. William Smith was present on the premises during the execution of the warrant. Smith was not named or described in the warrant. The arresting officer lacked probable cause to believe Smith had committed a crime prior to the arrest. Other defendants were also arrested during the execution of the warrant. The warrant was based on an officer’s observations, potentially combined with information from an informant.

    Procedural History

    The defendants moved to suppress evidence seized during the search and subsequent arrests. The trial court denied the motion to suppress for all defendants, believing corroboration was needed. The case was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the motion to suppress evidence should be granted for defendant William Smith, who was not named or described in the warrant and for whom the officer lacked probable cause for arrest.
    2. Whether the officer’s observations, independent of an informant’s communication, were sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant and/or to arrest without a warrant for the other defendants.
    3. Whether the People were required to disclose the identity of the informant or produce him to sustain the warrant’s validity, given the officer’s independent observations.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because William Smith was not named or described in the warrant, and the arresting officer lacked probable cause to believe he had committed a crime before the arrest.
    2. Yes, because the officer’s observations were sufficient, independent of the informer’s communication, to establish probable cause to support the issuance of a warrant or to arrest without a warrant.
    3. No, because the officer’s observations were sufficient to establish probable cause independently, the People were not required to disclose the informant’s identity.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the arrest of William Smith was unlawful because he was not named in the warrant and the officer lacked independent probable cause to believe he had committed a crime before arresting him. The court cited United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 587, to support the principle that mere presence on premises being searched does not justify arrest without probable cause. The court distinguished Smith’s situation from the other defendants. For the other defendants, the court found the trial judge considered the officer’s testimony regarding his observations credible and sufficient to establish probable cause. Since the officer’s observations independently established probable cause, the court held that the People were not obligated to disclose the informant’s identity or produce him. The court cited People v. Valentine, 17 N.Y.2d 128, 132, and People v. White, 16 N.Y.2d 270, 273, to support the view that an officer’s observations can establish probable cause for a warrant or an arrest without a warrant. The court noted, “The officer’s observations were sufficient, quite apart from the informer’s communication, to establish that probable cause existed to support the issuance of a warrant, or, indeed, to arrest without a warrant.”