People v. Henning

236 A.D.2d 801, 653 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1725
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Henning. Read the opinion of the Court — 267 A.D.2d 1092

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. The affidavit of an investigator and a Deputy Sheriff with the Niagara County Drug Task Force provided information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that evidence of possession and sale of marihuana would be found at the targeted location and, thus, supports the court’s finding of probable cause (see, People v Pinchback, 82 NY2d 857, 858; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423).

[802]*802We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.—Criminal Possession Marihuana, 2nd Degree.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

People v. Henning, 236 A.D.2d 801, 653 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

236 A.D.2d 801 (People v. Henning) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Pinchback
631 N.E.2d 100 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Bigelow
488 N.E.2d 451 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)