People v. Glass

136 A.D.2d 892, 524 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1330
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 136 A.D.2d 892 (People v. Glass) 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. Glass, 136 A.D.2d 892, 524 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1330 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, defendant’s motion to suppress granted and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her of criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree, defendant’s primary claim is that a search warrant under which the marihuana was seized was not issued upon probable cause. The suppression court found that the warrant application did not satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108; Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410), but did meet the "totality of the circumstances” test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v Gates (462 US 213).

The Court of Appeals in cases involving arrests without a warrant has declined to adopt the Gates test as a matter of State constitutional law (People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 406) and we see no reason why the Gates test should be applied to cases involving a search warrant as in the instant case (see, People v P. J. Video, 68 NY2d 296, 305; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 424-425; People v Griminger, 127 AD2d 74, 83, Iv granted 70 NY2d 647). It is the Magistrate, not the police, who must determine probable cause and that determination must be objectively verifiable (People v P. J. Video, supra, at 307; People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 559). Here, the warrant application fails both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test because there was no showing that the informant or the informant’s information was reliable. Since the warrant was not issued upon probable cause, defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. In view of our holding, we need not reach the other issues raised by defendant. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—criminal possession of marihuana, first degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Maldonado
154 A.D.2d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Wesley
538 N.E.2d 76 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. O'Donnell
146 A.D.2d 923 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Williams
140 Misc. 2d 741 (New York Supreme Court, 1988)
People v. Wesley
139 A.D.2d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 A.D.2d 892, 524 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-glass-nyappdiv-1988.