People v. Freitag
| Decision Date | 13 March 1989 |
| Citation | 148 A.D.2d 544,538 N.Y.S.2d 872 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. David FREITAG, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Neal S. Comer, New York City, for appellant.
Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty., White Plains (Peter D. Gormanly and Maryanne Luciano, of counsel), for respondent.
Before EIBER, J.P., and KOOPER, SULLIVAN and HARWOOD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered October 7, 1987, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), attempted rape in the first degree, attempted sodomy in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to controvert a search warrant, suppress physical evidence, and to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
During the early morning hours of May 21, 1986, the complainant was raped in her home. After the perpetrator fled, the complainant got into her car and noticed that the contents of the glove compartment had been scattered over the seat and floor. She proceeded to drive to her parents' home where she called the police. After a preliminary investigation of the complainant's home had been conducted, the police secured the premises and returned to the precinct. When they returned to the premises some two hours later, they discovered that the complainant's house had been burglarized and that the perpetrator of the burglary had entered the residence in the same manner as the rapist.
During the course of the investigation the police also discovered a surgical glove in the roadway which connected the complainant's home to the defendant's residence. A similar glove was found in the complainant's car. On November 13, 1986, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation identified a fingerprint which was recovered from the surgical glove, as that of the defendant.
On November 21, 1986, a search warrant was issued by the Special Sessions Court of the Town of Greenburgh, based upon an application which alleged that there was reasonable cause to believe that stolen property and evidence were to be found in the defendant's bedroom and in two vehicles owned by him. The search warrant application included a detailed list of the items sought to be recovered. Following the search, the defendant was arrested. He subsequently moved to controvert the warrant and to suppress the evidence which was obtained as a result thereof.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fernandez
...not stale for the purposes of establishing probable cause (see People v. Walker, 285 A.D.2d 660, 727 N.Y.S.2d 731 ; People v. Freitag, 148 A.D.2d 544, 538 N.Y.S.2d 872 ). The defendant's further contention that the officers executing the search warrant exceeded the parameters of the warrant......
-
People v. Clarke
...N.Y.S.2d 67; People v. Teribury, 91 A.D.2d 815, 458 N.Y.S.2d 85; People v. McCants, 59 A.D.2d 999, 399 N.Y.S.2d 715; People v. Freitag, 148 A.D.2d 544, 538 N.Y.S.2d 872). Indeed, we note that probable cause is not to be determined by counting the number of days between the occurrence of the......
-
People v. Hayon, 2039/2016.
...[3d Dept.2011] [not unreasonable for murder defendant to hide weapons and other evidence in place defendant controls]; People v. Freitag, 148 A.D.2d 544, 545, 538 N.Y.S.2d 872 [2d Dept.1989] [passage of six months did not make warrant information stale considering the nature of the proceeds......
-
People v. Clark, 2017–01881
...the records made an express finding of probable cause, which was supported by the People's evidentiary showing (see People v. Freitag, 148 A.D.2d 544, 545, 538 N.Y.S.2d 872 ). Accordingly, the order "was effectively a warrant" which complied with the requirement of Carpenter ( People v. Sor......