People v. Wood
| Decision Date | 24 December 1986 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeffrey A. WOOD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Feit & Schlenker (Michael A. Feit, of counsel), Albany, for appellant.
Michael Kavanagh, Dist. Atty., Kingston, for respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Traficanti, Jr., J.), rendered October 22, 1984, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.
In July 1982, a confidential informant contacted the Dutchess County Sheriff's office and stated that defendant was a major supplier of cocaine. The informant, who indicated that he had been a drug courier for defendant, provided detailed information about defendant's alleged drug trafficking activities. This tip was relayed to an investigator on the State Organized Crime Task Force and an independent investigation of defendant was commenced. During the ensuing three-month investigation, various evidence indicating defendant's involvement in drug activity was gathered. However, due in part to the rural location of defendant's residence and the fact that defendant had devices to detect police surveillance, investigators were unable to conduct a productive surveillance of defendant's residence.
On September 30, 1982, an application was made for an eavesdropping warrant authorizing a wire tap on the telephone located at defendant's residence. The application was supported by affidavits detailing information provided by the informant and learned from subsequent investigation by the police. On October 1, 1982, an eavesdropping warrant was issued by a County Judge. The warrant was subsequently extended and, as a result of information gleaned from the wire tap, an additional eavesdropping warrant was issued which authorized tapping the phone of an alleged accomplice of defendant, Erich Heinze.
In late November and early December 1982, information was obtained which revealed that a drug transaction would take place on December 4, 1982 at Heinze's residence. A police investigator submitted an application, supported by five affidavits, for a search warrant. The warrant was signed by a County Judge. It was conditioned upon defendant traveling to the Heinze residence.
On December 4, 1982, police surveillance was established near the Heinze residence. Defendant arrived at the Heinze residence and when he subsequently left, the investigators followed him. While defendant was stopped at a red light, one of the investigators approached defendant's vehicle and held his badge up next to defendant's window in an attempt to execute the search warrant. Defendant responded by running the red light and taking flight. He was followed and eventually the police forced him to stop his vehicle on a bridge. As defendant was coming to a stop, one of the officers observed him throwing a black pouch out of his window. The pouch was later retrieved and found to contain 69 grams of cocaine.
Defendant was indicted for the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and equipping a motor vehicle with a radio receiving set capable of receiving signals on frequencies allocated for police use. Defendant moved to suppress all electronic eavesdropping documentation as well as the various physical evidence seized at the time of his arrest. Following a lengthy suppression hearing, defendant's motion was denied. Defendant then pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree in full satisfaction of the charges against him. This appeal ensued.
We find meritless defendant's contention that the eavesdropping warrant was not supported by probable cause. The application was based upon information provided by the confidential informant and evidence accumulated in an ongoing investigation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. St. Louis
...affidavit submitted in support of the instant warrant application--the rural location of defendant's home (see, People v. Wood, 125 A.D.2d 823, 825, 509 N.Y.S.2d 922) and resulting limited utility of physical surveillance (see, United States v. DePalma, 461 F.Supp. 800, 813), the drug trans......
-
People v. Baker
...warrant. Here, however, the application establishes that the rural location of defendant's residence (see, People v. Wood, 125 A.D.2d 823, 825, 509 N.Y.S.2d 922), the execution of drug transactions by telephone (see, People v. Hafner, supra ) behind closed doors (see, People v. Spano, supra......
-
People v. Rosser
...cf., People v. Greaves, 123 A.D.2d 445, 506 N.Y.S.2d 749, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 712, 512 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 504 N.E.2d 406; People v. Wood, 125 A.D.2d 823, 509 N.Y.S.2d 922). Here, the "pursuit" consisted of nothing more than James Taylor's act of walking down the street in the direction of a de......
- People v. Cook