People v. Williams
| Citation | 283 N.Y.S.2d 169,229 N.E.2d 839,20 N.Y.2d 388 |
| Parties | , 229 N.E.2d 839 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Leon WILLIAMS and Elliot Edwards, Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1967 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Lois P. Sheinfeld and Anthony F. Marra, New York City, for appellants.
Aaron E. Koota, Dist. Atty. (Michael Schwartz, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Detective Dorrish received confidential information from an informer who had given him reliable information in the past. As a result of this information, Dorrish placed under observation a three-story apartment building in Brooklyn. Two men entered and, upon their exit from the building, were placed under arrest and charged with possession of heroin.
In the police car, the two men stated that they had come from the basement of the building. Dorrish returned to the location. He opened the unlocked door of the building and walked down to the basement. As he approached the door of the basement apartment, he heard someone inside whisper, 'I hear someone.' At this point, the officer pushed against the apartment door, which, having no hinges, fell in.
The officer saw the defendants on the floor and observed eyedroppers and hypodermic needles there in open view. He placed the defendants under arrest and a search of their persons revealed glassine envelopes, later found to contain heroin. 1
After a hearing, the defendants' motion to suppress this evidence was denied. The defendants pleaded guilty to violating section 3305 of the Public Health Law, Consol.Laws, c. 45. The Appellate Term affirmed the judgments of the Criminal Court, Kings County, convicting the defendants.
It is quite clear that, once the officer broke into the apartment and observed the hypodermic needles and eyedroppers, he had probable cause to arrest the defendants and search their persons. The question is whether, in the first place, the officer had probable cause to break into the apartment.
In Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436, an officer had received information from a reliable informer that unknown persons were smoking opium at a specified hotel. 2 The officer, together with four narcotic agents, went to the hotel. (Johnson v. United States, supra, p. 12, 68 S.Ct. p. 368.)
The occupant of the room admitted the officers after they stated their authority. The officers found opium and smoking apparatus in the room, which were used against the occupant of the room at her trial.
The Supreme Court pointed out that stronger evidence that a crime is being committed is necessary when an officer searches without a warrant.
(Johnson v. United States, supra, pp. 13--14, 68 S.Ct. p. 369.)
If Detective Dorrish had obtained a warrant to search the premises, the issuance by a magistrate would be a factor of some weight in determining the question of probable cause. As the court stated in United States ex rel. Rogers v. Warden, 381 F.2d 209, 216 (2d Cir., June 15, 1967):
'Once there has been a judicial determination of probable cause * * * it will not be handily overturned by an appellate court.'
Nevertheless, although the officer in Rogers had obtained a search warrant, the court found it invalid due to the deficiency of the affidavit on which it was based. The officer had stated two grounds for his belief that the apartment which Rogers occupied contained narcotics. The first was that a reliable informant had given him this information and the second that he had observed the premises and seen four narcotics addicts enter them within a two-day period. The court stated (p. 217) that the first ground was insufficient by itself because the 'affidavit suffered from the same fatal flaw that was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. P.J. Video, Inc.
...as to probable cause will, of itself, constitute a suitable makeweight when the warrant is challenged (People v. Williams, 20 N.Y.2d 388, 283 N.Y.S.2d 169, 229 N.E.2d 839; Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726). By the same token, where the Magistrate merely acts as ......
-
Moore v. State
...proof on a motion to suppress is on the accused. Anderson v. United States, 344 F.2d 792 (10th Cir.1965); People v. Williams, 20 N.Y.2d 388, 283 N.Y.S.2d 169, 229 N.E.2d 839 (1967). In Wilson v. State, 268 P.2d 585 (Okl.Cr.App.1954), the Oklahoma court, in noting that the burden was on defe......
-
People v. Hanlon
...as to probable cause will, of itself, constitute a suitable makeweight when the warrant is challenged (People v. Williams, 20 N.Y.2d 388, 283 N.Y.S.2d 169, 229 N.E.2d 839; Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726). By the same token, where the Magistrate merely acts as ......
- McKee Elec. Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp.
-
Rounding Up the Undesirables: The Making of a Prostitution-Targeted Loitering Law in New York City.
...v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971). (5.) Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972). (6.) People v. Williams, 20 N.Y. 2d 388 (7.) Williams, 20 N.Y. 2d 388. (8.) Berck, 32 N.Y. 2d 567. (9.) People v. Smith, 88 Misc. 2d 590 (1976). (10.) People v. Smith, 44 N.Y. 2d 613 ......