People v. Campo
| Decision Date | 14 August 1972 |
| Citation | 71 Misc.2d 6,335 N.Y.S.2d 199 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Complainant, v. Michael L. CAMPO, Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
It is well settled that the credibility of an informant and the reliability of his information may be established by the affiant's stating that the informant is known to him and has in the past furnished information leading to the arrest and conviction of others. (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 (1965); People v. Burnham, 30 A.D.2d 813, 292 N.Y.S.2d 164, 165 (2nd Dept. 1968), affd. 23 N.Y.2d 809, 297 N.Y.S.2d 310, 244 N.E.2d 878.)
The main thrust of the defendant's motion to suppress is that the application for the search warrant herein does not recite that the informant had given the affiant information in the past leading to the arrest And conviction of others but merely recites that such information led to 'an A.C.D. until 9/29/72'. (Emphasis the Court's).
In other words, the defendant contends that only where the information given in the past by an informant led to arrest and conviction does the informant's reliability stand up.
This is not the law. An informant's reliability can be tested in other ways. (See Aguilar .v Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723.)
An examination of the application for the search warrant herein indicates not only that the affiant, Detective William P. Stevens, knew the informant but that the informant had stated to him that he was in the company of the subjects in their apartment on at least two separate occasions and while in the apartment was offered a marijuana cigarette on each occasion by subjects named in the warrant and was present while marijuana was being smoked.
Thus the affiant set forth underlying circumstances on which the informant based his conclusions and from which the police officer affiant concluded that the informant was credible or that the information was reliable.
The fact that information given by the same informant had led not to the arrest and conviction but to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal for two named persons does not weaken the reliability of the informant one iota.
Both persons who received adjournments in contemplation of dismissal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodrich v. Gonzalez, 76 C 670.
...N.Y.S.2d 279, 289 (Sup.Ct.Spec.T.1976), modified on other grounds, 58 A.D.2d 887, 396 N.Y.S.2d 883 (2d Dep't 1977); People v. Campo, 71 Misc.2d 6, 335 N.Y.S.2d 199, 201 (City Ct. Mt. Vernon 1972); People v. Paar, 89 Misc.2d 11, 390 N.Y.S.2d 776, 778 (Dist.Ct. Nass.Co.1976); Krum v. Hogan, 6......
-
Perez v. Dumpson
...was never intended to have the same legal effect as a 'trial order of dismissal', the former not being on the merits (People v. Campo, 71 Misc.2d 6, 335 N.Y.S.2d 199), whereas the latter is on the merits. Certainly, the Legislature never contemplated such a dismissal to be considered or use......
- People v. Glover
-
People v. Mann
...is not a dismissal on the merits. It is merely a remedy afforded certain first drug offenders to keep their names cleam. People v. Campo, 71 Misc.2d 6, 335 N.Y.S.2d 199. It should not be used to frustrate prosecution where the recipient has misled the ...