People v. Likely

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Likely

166 A.D.2d 872, 560 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12083

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 872 (People v. Likely) 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. Likely, 166 A.D.2d 872, 560 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court did not err in granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to two search warrants executed at defendant Bryant’s residence and upon the persons of defendants Likely and McGriff.

Probable cause for the issuance of the eavesdropping warrant was not established, and the police did not make an adequate showing that normal investigative procedures had been tried and had failed and that other investigative procedures appeared unlikely to succeed if tried (CPL 700.15). The People cannot rely on defendant’s conduct to establish probable cause because such conduct was equivocal and, at best, evinced only suspicious activity (see, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417; People v Corrado, 22 NY2d 308, rearg denied 23 NY2d 921). Moreover, information allegedly furnished by the confidential informant was insufficient to establish probable cause because there was no showing of the informant’s basis of knowledge and reliability (Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108; [873]*873People v Montague, 19 NY2d 121, cert denied 389 US 862). Finally, the People’s claim that the residential character of defendant Bryant’s neighborhood precluded effective surveillance is belied by the fact that the police were successful in maintaining surveillance after the wiretap was in place. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—dismiss indictment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court did not err in granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to two search warrants executed at defendant Bryant’s residence and upon the persons of defendants Likely and McGriff.

Probable cause for the issuance of the eavesdropping warrant was not established, and the police did not make an adequate showing that normal investigative procedures had been tried and had failed and that other investigative procedures appeared unlikely to succeed if tried (CPL 700.15). The People cannot rely on defendant’s conduct to establish probable cause because such conduct was equivocal and, at best, evinced only suspicious activity (see, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417; People v Corrado, 22 NY2d 308, rearg denied 23 NY2d 921). Moreover, information allegedly furnished by the confidential informant was insufficient to establish probable cause because there was no showing of the informant’s basis of knowledge and reliability (Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108; [873]*873People v Montague, 19 NY2d 121, cert denied 389 US 862). Finally, the People’s claim that the residential character of defendant Bryant’s neighborhood precluded effective surveillance is belied by the fact that the police were successful in maintaining surveillance after the wiretap was in place. (Appeal from order of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—dismiss indictment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 872, 560 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-likely-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack