People v. Marriaga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marriaga

124 A.D.2d 751, 508 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62059

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 751 (People v. Marriaga) 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. Marriaga, 124 A.D.2d 751, 508 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62059 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

[752]*752A review of the affidavit supporting the application for the search warrant demonstrates that there was sufficient information before the issuing Judge to support his determination that probable cause existed to believe that the controlled substances, drug paraphernalia and other items described in the warrant could be found at the address set forth therein (see, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417; People v Wirchansky, 41 NY2d 130; People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 559). Therefore, the warrant was to be presumed valid, and the burden of proving otherwise fell upon the challenger. As the defendant failed to demonstrate that there was an abuse of discretion by the issuing Judge, the validity of the warrant was properly upheld by the hearing court (see, People v Manuli, 104 AD2d 386). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

[752]*752A review of the affidavit supporting the application for the search warrant demonstrates that there was sufficient information before the issuing Judge to support his determination that probable cause existed to believe that the controlled substances, drug paraphernalia and other items described in the warrant could be found at the address set forth therein (see, People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417; People v Wirchansky, 41 NY2d 130; People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 559). Therefore, the warrant was to be presumed valid, and the burden of proving otherwise fell upon the challenger. As the defendant failed to demonstrate that there was an abuse of discretion by the issuing Judge, the validity of the warrant was properly upheld by the hearing court (see, People v Manuli, 104 AD2d 386). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 751, 508 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marriaga-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack