People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 29 December 1967 |
| Parties | , 234 N.E.2d 460 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Francis SMITH, Iona Gibbs and William Smith, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Paul A. Victor and Saverio A. Muschio, New York City, for appellant.
Isidore Dolinger, Dist. Atty. (Roy Broudny, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Since the defendant William Smith was not named or described in the warrant and since the arresting officer did not have probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime--although he did enter the premises while the officer was there--the motion to suppress which he made should be granted. (See, e.g., United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 587, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210; United States v. Festa, D.C., 192 F.Supp. 160, 163; People v. Brown, 40 Misc.2d 35, 43, 242 N.Y.S.2d 555, 563.)
However, in regard to the claims of the other defendants, it is clear that the Trial Judge believed the facts insufficient to sustain the warrant Only because of the absence of an informant to 'corroborate the officer's testimony.' Had he believed that testimony untruthful, he would not have deemed it capable or susceptible of being corroborated by an informer. The officer's observations were sufficient, quite apart from the informer's communication, to establish that probable cause existed to support the issuance of a warrant, or, indeed, to arrest without a warrant. (See, e.g., People v. Valentine, 17 N.Y.2d 128, 132, 269 N.Y.S.2d 111, 114, 216 N.E.2d 321, 323; People v. White, 16 N.Y.2d 270, 273, 266 N.Y.S.2d 100, 102, 213 N.E.2d 438, 439.) Since that is so, the People were not under the necessity of disclosing the identity of the informer or of producing him. (See, e.g., People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 85, 96, 262 N.Y.S.2d 65, 74, 209 N.E.2d 694, 700.)
Order appealed from modified to the extent of reversing so much of the order as denied the motion to suppress made by defendant William Smith and, except as so modified, affirmed.
Order accordingly.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Platou
...v. Bradbury, 109 N.H. 105, 243 A.2d 302 (1968); State v. Fox, 283 Minn. 176, 168 N.W.2d 260 (1969); People v. Smith, 21 N.Y.2d 698, 287 N.Y.S.2d 425, 234 N.E.2d 460 (1967) (per curiam); Crossland v. State, 266 P.2d 649 (Okl.Cr.App.1954); State v. Carufel, 106 R.I. 739, 263 A.2d 686 (1970); ......
-
People v. Boyd
...is being committed or attempted. " See also People v. Zimbardo, 21 N.Y.2d 15, 286 N.Y.S.2d 237, 233 N.E.2d 263; People v. Smith, 21 N.Y.2d 698, 287 N.Y.S.2d 425, 234 N.E.2d 460; Carlo v. United States, 2 Cir., 286 F.2d 841, 848, cert. den. 366 U.S. 944, 81 S.Ct. 1672, 6 L.Ed.2d 855; People ......
-
Ex parte Powers
... ... [ 2 ] ... The ... Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects ... "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their ... persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable ... searches and seizures" and provides further that ... Court involving body searches of people who are mere visitors ... of premises covered by a search warrant. See, e.g. , ... Smith v. State , 292 Ala. 120, 289 So.2d 816 (1974); ... and Ybarra v. Illinois , 444 U.S. 85 (1979). But, in ... those cases, the searches ... ...
-
People v. Brown
...only, there was no recurring pattern of conduct sufficient to negate inferences of innocent activity (cf. 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, 132, 269 N.Y.S.2d 111, 114, 216 N.E.2d 321, 323), no overheard conversation between......