People v. Eutsay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eutsay

287 A.D.2d 298, 731 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9363

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

DecidedOctober 11, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 298 (People v. Eutsay) 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. Eutsay, 287 A.D.2d 298, 731 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9363 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered March 27, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony of[299]*299fender, to concurrent terms of three years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. In this case involving a level-three encounter resulting from information obtained from a confidential informant, defendant argues that there was an insufficient showing of the informant’s reliability. Since a level-three encounter requires reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause, a lesser showing with respect to an informant’s reliability and basis of knowledge suffices (People v Herold, 282 AD2d 1, 4-5). Here, the police had a sufficient basis to believe that the informant was reliable since the detective knew the informant from the area and had a number where he could contact the informant, and the informant had supplied information to him in the past which led to warrants and arrests. Contrary to defendant’s argument, details about the informant’s prior tips were not required in order to establish the informant’s reliability (see, People v Calise, 256 AD2d 64, 66, lv denied 93 NY2d 851). Accordingly, defendant’s abandonment of the gun and subsequent statement were not the product of unlawful police activity. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered March 27, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony of[299]*299fender, to concurrent terms of three years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. In this case involving a level-three encounter resulting from information obtained from a confidential informant, defendant argues that there was an insufficient showing of the informant’s reliability. Since a level-three encounter requires reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause, a lesser showing with respect to an informant’s reliability and basis of knowledge suffices (People v Herold, 282 AD2d 1, 4-5). Here, the police had a sufficient basis to believe that the informant was reliable since the detective knew the informant from the area and had a number where he could contact the informant, and the informant had supplied information to him in the past which led to warrants and arrests. Contrary to defendant’s argument, details about the informant’s prior tips were not required in order to establish the informant’s reliability (see, People v Calise, 256 AD2d 64, 66, lv denied 93 NY2d 851). Accordingly, defendant’s abandonment of the gun and subsequent statement were not the product of unlawful police activity. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 298, 731 N.Y.S.2d 684, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eutsay-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack