People v. Fahrenkopf
| Decision Date | 18 March 1993 |
| Citation | 191 A.D.2d 903,595 N.Y.S.2d 139 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald FAHRENKOPF, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paul Gruner (Denise Y. Dourdeville, of counsel), Kingston, for appellant.
Michael Kavanagh, Dist. Atty. (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb, of counsel), Kingston, for respondent.
Before WEISS, P.J., and MIKOLL, MERCURE, MAHONEY and CASEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered August 15, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the first degree.
We reject defendant's contention that the description in the search warrant failed to sufficiently describe the premises to be searched. The description in a search warrant of a place to be searched will be found sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements if it "is such that the officer * * * can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended" (Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757; see, People v. Davis, 146 A.D.2d 942, 537 N.Y.S.2d 93). The search warrant in this case accurately described the premises to be searched and its general location. Although the warrant erroneously stated that the premises was the middle of three trailers at the site in question, the fact that the warrant also stated that the trailer was the residence of defendant allowed police to ascertain the target trailer "by minimal inquiry at the site, without there being anything but the remotest possibility that the wrong place would be searched" (People v. Davis, supra, at 944, 537 N.Y.S.2d 93). Finally, we find that the affidavits attached to the search warrant application provided the basis for a description of the location of the premises to be searched sufficient to support the issuance of the warrant (see, People v. Rosenholm, 181 A.D.2d 943, 581 N.Y.S.2d 466).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thomas
...A.D.2d 886, 887, 632 N.Y.S.2d 338 [1995], lv. denied 87 N.Y.2d 904, 641 N.Y.S.2d 234, 663 N.E.2d 1264 [1995] ; People v. Fahrenkopf, 191 A.D.2d 903, 903, 595 N.Y.S.2d 139 [1993] ).1 Nor do we find that the police officer's use of defendant's key to enter the residence otherwise rendered the......
-
People v. Lopez
...723, 677 N.E.2d 295, quoting Steele v. United States No. 1, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 69 L.Ed. 757; see, People v. Fahrenkopf, 191 A.D.2d 903, 595 N.Y.S.2d 139). Here, the search warrant application described the premises to be searched as "353 Third Street, second floor, left apartm......
-
People v. Graham
...(see, United States v. Gitcho, 8th Cir., 601 F.2d 369, cert. denied 444 U.S. 871, 100 S.Ct. 148, 62 L.Ed.2d 96; People v. Fahrenkopf, 191 A.D.2d 903, 595 N.Y.S.2d 139; People v. Lemazzo, 156 Misc.2d 756, 594 N.Y.S.2d 610). The determination of whether the executing officer can so identify t......
- People v. Tranka