People v. Rogers

Citation260 N.Y.S.2d 433,15 N.Y.2d 422
Parties, 208 N.E.2d 168 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James ROGERS, Appellant.
Decision Date27 May 1965
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Frances Kahn, New York City, for appellant.

Aaron E. Koota, Dist. Atty. (William I. Siegel, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

DESMOND, Chief Judge.

On the authority of search warrant issued by a New York City Criminal Court Judge, police officers entered and searched the Brooklyn apartment where defendant-appellant and his wife lived. The affidavit on which the search warrant was issued states the sources and character of information which the affiant police officer claimed to have as to possession and sales of narcotic drugs in defendant's apartment. The sufficiency of this affidavit is the only question before us.

Although the search warrant was issued on allegations as to the narcotics sales in defendant's apartment only, the search resulted in two indictments which not only charged defendant and his wife with several assaults on police officers and narcotics violations, but, also, charged defendant-appellant separately with the crime of carrying a dangerous weapon as a felony. Defendant made a pretrial motion under section 813-c of the Code of Criminal Procedure to controvert the warrant and to suppress evidence. The motion was denied.

Some days later appellant pleaded guilty to one of the charged crimes, that is, carrying a dangerous weapon as a felony. He was sentenced to prison. His notice of appeal to the Appellate Division from the conviction brought up also the intermediate order denying his motion to controvert the search warrant. Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed in a memo (22 A.D.2d 902, 255 N.Y.S.2d 332) in which the court said that it read the affidavit to mean that the undisclosed informer referred to in the affidavit had told the police officer that the informer had seen narcotic drug transactions in the apartment and that this showing was sufficient for the issuance of the warrant when taken with the officer's statement in the affidavit that on each of two days before the warrant was issued the officer had seen entering appellant's premises a number of persons, including two known drug addicts. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction and also the intermediate order brought up for review which had denied the motion to controvert the warrant.

The challenged affidavit says that the detective who signed the affidavit had information from an (unnamed) informer, known to the affiant to be reliable and accurate and whose information in the past had led to the arrest and conviction of three persons, that (defendant) Jimmy Rogers and others were selling narcotic drugs in the described premises (Rogers' apartment), also that the deponent had observed these premises one two separate days for one hour on one day and two hours on another day, and that at those times 13 persons including 4 known male addicts had been seen entering the premises and that because of these facts deponent had reasonable ground to believe that narcotic drugs and paraphernalia were on the premises and in the possession of the defendant and other persons there.

The affidavit was sufficient. In People v. Misuraco, 16 N.Y.2d 542, 260 N.Y.S.2d 655, 208 N.E.2d 461, decided May 20, 1965, one of the questions was as to whether the search warrant affidavit was adequate basis for authorizing a night search. We held that it was. In so doing we, of course, held that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • People v. Brown
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 17, 1976
    ...previously supplied accurate information (People v. Montague, 19 N.Y.2d 121, 278 N.Y.S.2d 372, 224 N.E.2d 873; People v. Rogers, 15 N.Y.2d 422, 260 N.Y.S.2d 433, 208 N.E.2d 168). Or, the affiant may attest to the existence of independent objective verification of the informer's story (Peopl......
  • People v. Mangialino
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • October 17, 1973
    ...88 S.Ct. 116, 19 L.Ed.2d 130; see also, People v. Marshall, 13 N.Y.2d 28, 241 N.Y.S.2d 417, 191 N.E.2d 798; People v. Rogers, 15 N.Y.2d 422, 260 N.Y.S.2d 433, 208 N.E.2d 168). The affidavit was more than sufficient to establish probable cause for a reasonably cautious, prudent and experienc......
  • People v. Prisco
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1969
    ...(Affidavit) See United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (cited in People v. Rogers, 15 N.Y.2d 422, 425, 260 N.Y.S.2d 433, 435, 208 N.E.2d 168, 169, Infra), where the factual conclusions of the affidavit were based in part on observations by the affiant (Federa......
  • People v. Asaro
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1968
    ...conclusion and belief of the affiant that his informer was credible or his information reliable * * *' (People v. Rogers, 15 N.Y.2d 422, 425, 260 N.Y.S.2d 433, 436, 208 N.E.2d 168, 170, emphasis supplied). 'The 'underlying circumstance' from which the affiant and the issuing officer in Vent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT