People v. Cameron

Decision Date29 December 1972
Citation339 N.Y.S.2d 12,40 A.D.2d 1034
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edith May CAMERON et al., Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division



Appeal from six judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, all rendered May 15, 1972 (one as to each defendant), convicting them of criminal possession of a dangerous drug (in varying degrees) etc., upon guilty pleas, and imposing sentences. The appeal brings up for review two orders of the same court, dated November 30, 1971 and January 25, 1972, which, respectively, denied their two successive motions to suppress evidence.

Cases of the six defendants remitted to the Criminal Term for a hearing and a new determination on defendants' motion to suppress evidence on the ground that statements contained in the affidavit upon which the search warrants were issued were perjurious. In the interim, the appeals will be held in abeyance.

On May 21, 1971 three search warrants were issued and executed upon an affidavit by a police officer which described certain activities of defendant Stanley Sims observed during three periods of surveillance and which alleged that a policy operation was being conducted. Defendants moved to controvert the warrants and to suppress the evidence seized. The right to a hearing was waived and the motion was argued solely on the ground of the legal sufficiency of the underlying affidavit. The motion was denied by order of November 30, 1971.

In our opinion, the Criminal Term properly found that the statements contained in the affidavit made a sufficient showing of probable cause to justify the issuance of the warrant (People v. Smith, 21 N.Y.2d 698, 287 N.Y.S.2d 425, 234 N.E.2d 460; People v. Valentine, 17 N.Y.2d 128, 269 N.Y.S.2d 111, 216 N.E.2d 321; People v. Meyers, 38 A.D.2d 484, 330 N.Y.S.2d 625; People v. White, 16 N.Y.2d 270, 266 N.Y.S.2d 100, 213 N.E.2d 438; United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108--112, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684).

Defendants subsequently moved to suppress the evidence seized on the ground that the affidavit contained perjured testimony and requested a hearing on that issue. The motion was supported by an affirmation by defense counsel stating, upon information and belief, that as a result of testimony given before the Knapp Commission a Federal Grand Jury had been convened to inquire into the conduct of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States ex rel. Cubicutti v. Vincent
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 2, 1974
    ...affidavit for a warrant is proper. People v. Alfinito, 16 N.Y.2d 181, 264 N.Y.S.2d 243, 211 N.E.2d 644 (1965); People v. Cameron, 40 A.D.2d 1034, 339 N.Y.S.2d 12 (2d Dept. 1972). Generally, however, the federal courts have shown reluctance to permit inquiry into the truthfulness of the fact......
  • Cameron v. Fastoff, 176
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 22, 1976
    ...officer's affidavit, but remanded for a hearing on whether the affidavit contained perjurious statements. People v. Cameron, 40 App.Div.2d 1034, 339 N.Y.S.2d 12 (2nd Dept. 1972). Following a hearing pursuant to the remand, Justice Brennan on August 14, 1973 filed an opinion again denying th......
  • Cameron v. Hect
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • February 23, 1978
    ...Bonino had perjured himself, citing People v. Alfinito, 16 N.Y.2d 181, 264 N.Y.S.2d 243, 211 N.E.2d 644 (1965). People v. Cameron et al., 40 A.D.2d 1034, 339 N.Y.S.2d 12 (1972). At the hearing, petitioners' counsel called Patrolman Bonino to the stand, questioned him extensively on his obse......
  • People v. Cameron
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 6, 1974
    ...remanded the case to the Criminal Term solely to determine, after a hearing, whether those statements were perjurious (People v. Cameron, 40 A.D.2d 1034, 339 N.Y.S.2d 12). The remand was predicated on the allegations of the defense that the affidavit contained perjurious statements and that......

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