People v. Fox

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Fox

435 N.E.2d 1090, 56 N.Y.2d 615, 450 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3287

DecidedApril 6, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 435 N.E.2d 1090 (People v. Fox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Fox, 435 N.E.2d 1090, 56 N.Y.2d 615, 450 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3287 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the motion to suppress granted and the matter remitted to [617]*617Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

Defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence seized from his apartment should have been granted. The only sworn testimony submitted in support of the warrant application was the affidavit of a transit police officer. This document does not contain facts sufficient to support the determination that probable cause existed to search defendant’s apartment for a quantity of stolen checks (see People v Nieves, 36 NY2d. 396). In addition, on the facts of this case, we disagree that the confidential informant’s identity was itself sufficient to establish reliability. Inasmuch as no other indicia of reliability appear in the affidavit, this deficiency presents an additional ground for concluding that the warrant was issued without the requisite probable cause.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum; Judge Meyer taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the motion to suppress granted and the matter remitted to [617]*617Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

Defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence seized from his apartment should have been granted. The only sworn testimony submitted in support of the warrant application was the affidavit of a transit police officer. This document does not contain facts sufficient to support the determination that probable cause existed to search defendant’s apartment for a quantity of stolen checks (see People v Nieves, 36 NY2d. 396). In addition, on the facts of this case, we disagree that the confidential informant’s identity was itself sufficient to establish reliability. Inasmuch as no other indicia of reliability appear in the affidavit, this deficiency presents an additional ground for concluding that the warrant was issued without the requisite probable cause.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum; Judge Meyer taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 N.E.2d 1090, 56 N.Y.2d 615, 450 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fox-ny-1982.