People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 30 June 2016
• Citation: 34 N.Y.S.3d 528,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05186,140 A.D.3d 1526
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nicklas N. WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

140 A.D.3d 1526

34 N.Y.S.3d 528

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05186

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Nicklas N. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

June 30, 2016.

Linda B. Johnson, East Greenbush, for appellant.

Palmer Pelella, Special Prosecutor, Binghamton, for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, ROSE, MULVEY and AARONS, JJ.

PETERS, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered June 26, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts).

Upon the execution of a search warrant authorizing the search—including a strip search—of defendant and any vehicle that he was in or operating, defendant was found in possession of heroin and crack cocaine. Based, in part, on the evidence seized from the search, another search warrant was issued authorizing the search of defendant's residence that resulted in the seizure of additional narcotics. County Court denied defendant's motion to, among other things, suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search warrants. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to the entire indictment charging him with three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and County Court sentenced him, as a second felony offender, in accordance with the plea agreement to concurrent prison terms of six years, followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, contending that the evidence seized should have been suppressed because the initial search warrant application failed to establish probable cause for the search of defendant or a vehicle, describe with particularity the vehicle to be searched or provide a factual basis to permit a strip search.

We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the initial search warrant was not supported by probable cause. A presumption of validity is accorded a search warrant application approved by a magistrate (see People v. Rogers, 94 A.D.3d 1246, 1247, 942 N.Y.S.2d 260 [2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 977, 950 N.Y.S.2d 359, 973 N.E.2d 769 [2012] ; People v. Church, 31 A.D.3d 892, 894, 819 N.Y.S.2d 155 [2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 866, 824 N.Y.S.2d 611, 857 N.E.2d 1142 [2006] ). An application for a search warrant “must provide the magistrate with information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that evidence of illegal activity will be present at the specific time and place of the search” ( People v. Edwards, 69 N.Y.2d 814, 816, 513 N.Y.S.2d 960, 506 N.E.2d 530 [1987] ; see People v. Pasco, 134 A.D.3d 1257, 1258, 20 N.Y.S.3d 751 [2015] ). Furthermore, “[t]he proof underlying a warrant application must be of facts so closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time” (People v. Rodriguez, 303 A.D.2d 783, 784, 758 N.Y.S.2d 172 [2003] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v. Ming, 35 A.D.3d 962, 964, 825 N.Y.S.2d 825 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 883, 832 N.Y.S.2d 495, 864 N.E.2d 625 [2007] ).

Here, the information in support of the initial search warrant application included an affidavit from a confidential informant who identified defendant and set forth detailed information about his recent purchases of narcotics from defendant, including one purchase that was a controlled buy. In addition, the supporting affidavit of the police investigator noted the informant's reliability demonstrated by his signed affidavit as well as his prior assistance in numerous other arrests and drug seizures. The police investigator also submitted a supporting affidavit setting forth his knowledge and experience regarding narcotics trafficking and basis for the search warrant request. Contrary to defendant's contention, the foregoing information, together with our review of the confidential informant's affidavit, establishes that defendant was engaged in ongoing criminal activity of possessing and selling controlled substances that was in close proximity in time to the application for the search warrant so as to justify a finding that probable cause existed at the time the warrant was issued (see People v. Harris, 83 A.D.3d 1220, 1222, 920 N.Y.S.2d 850 [2011], lv. denied 17 N.Y.3d 817, 929 N.Y.S.2d 805, 954 N.E.2d 96 [2011] ; People v. Ming, 35 A.D.3d at 964, 825 N.Y.S.2d 825 ).

Furthermore, we find without merit defendant's contention that the search warrant authorizing the search of “any vehicle [defendant] may be...