People v. Rosenholm
| Decision Date | 21 December 1995 |
| Citation | 222 A.D.2d 909,635 N.Y.S.2d 337 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David J. ROSENHOLM, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Paul L. Gruner, Public Defender (Denise Y. Dourdeville, of counsel), Kingston, for appellant.
Michael Kavanagh, District Attorney (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb, of counsel), Kingston, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, YESAWICH and SPAIN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered December 7, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
As a result of information obtained from a confidential informant, defendant's vehicle was stopped by police on November 26, 1993. A package containing slightly over one half of an ounce of cocaine and some packets of heroin were discovered on defendant's person, as the result of which defendant was indicted and charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. After defendant's motion to suppress the aforesaid evidence was denied, he pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in satisfaction of the indictment and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years. Defendant now appeals.
Because the probable cause for the search of defendant was based upon information received from a confidential informant, the People had to establish the informant's reliability and his basis of knowledge (see, People v. Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635, 639, 529 N.Y.S.2d 55, 524 N.E.2d 409). The record reflects ample evidence to satisfy the first prong of that test and, indeed, defendant does not argue otherwise. Rather, defendant claims that the People failed to satisfy the second prong of the test, a contention with which we agree.
The record reveals that the informant advised the police that Douglas Bigler was going to pick up defendant at the Poughkeepsie train station and that defendant would be in possession of cocaine. The informant's basis of knowledge was what Bigler had told him. Thus, although the record reflects the informant's basis of knowledge, it does not, in any way, demonstrate Bigler's basis of knowledge, and it is clear that while probable cause may be based upon double hearsay, when that occurs the basis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Myhand
...the goal of the basis of knowledge test has been met ( see Greene, 153 A.D.2d at 443–444, 552 N.Y.S.2d 640; cf. People v. Rosenholm, 222 A.D.2d 909, 910, 635 N.Y.S.2d 337, lv. denied88 N.Y.2d 884, 645 N.Y.S.2d 459, 668 N.E.2d 430). Although CI–1 did not personally observe any alleged illega......
-
People v. Jackson
...Jamal's basis of knowledge must still be demonstrated inasmuch as this information constitutes double hearsay (see, People v. Rosenholm, 222 A.D.2d 909, 910, 635 N.Y.S.2d 337, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 884, 645 N.Y.S.2d 459, 668 N.E.2d 430). We note that the information itself is not sufficiently......
-
People v. Tyrell
...activity at defendant's residence (see, People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423, 497 N.Y.S.2d 630, 488 N.E.2d 451; cf., People v. Rosenholm, 222 A.D.2d 909, 635 N.Y.S.2d 337, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 884, 645 N.Y.S.2d 459, 668 N.E.2d 430). Specifically, on the same day he completed his supporting......
- Orlando v. Orlando