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.”