People v. Cote

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cote

124 A.D.2d 1000, 508 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62327

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 1000 (People v. Cote) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cote, 124 A.D.2d 1000, 508 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a conviction upon a plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree, arguing that a civilian complainant’s participation in the execution of the search warrant at defendant’s residence rendered the search of his residence illegal, requiring suppression of items seized. We disagree. Testimony adduced at the suppression hearing established that the complainant was taken to defendant’s residence after the police had identified items listed in the search warrant. The complainant merely pointed to items allegedly stolen from her. On these facts, we do not find that such participation invalidated the search (see, People v Boyd, 123 Misc 2d 634, 640).

We further find that the failure of either the investigator applying for the search warrant or the citizen informant, both of whom appeared before the issuing magistrate, to inform the magistrate of the fact that the informant recently had fought with defendant over a girl did not invalidate the search warrant. Even if the fight had motivated the informant to come forward, he was a citizen informant whose sworn information the magistrate reasonably could credit. There was probable cause to issue the search warrant (see, People v Hicks, 38 NY2d 90). (Appeal from judgment of Livingston County Court, Houston, J. — burglary, third degree.) Present— Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a conviction upon a plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree, arguing that a civilian complainant’s participation in the execution of the search warrant at defendant’s residence rendered the search of his residence illegal, requiring suppression of items seized. We disagree. Testimony adduced at the suppression hearing established that the complainant was taken to defendant’s residence after the police had identified items listed in the search warrant. The complainant merely pointed to items allegedly stolen from her. On these facts, we do not find that such participation invalidated the search (see, People v Boyd, 123 Misc 2d 634, 640).

We further find that the failure of either the investigator applying for the search warrant or the citizen informant, both of whom appeared before the issuing magistrate, to inform the magistrate of the fact that the informant recently had fought with defendant over a girl did not invalidate the search warrant. Even if the fight had motivated the informant to come forward, he was a citizen informant whose sworn information the magistrate reasonably could credit. There was probable cause to issue the search warrant (see, People v Hicks, 38 NY2d 90). (Appeal from judgment of Livingston County Court, Houston, J. — burglary, third degree.) Present— Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 1000, 508 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cote-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack