People v. West, 376 N.E.2d 190 (N.Y. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. West, 376 N.E.2d 190 (N.Y. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: The People v. Eric R. Johnson, The People v. John A. DiSalvo, The People v. Costandino Argyris (ny, 2014-11-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Eric R. Johnson, The People v. John A. DiSalvo, The People v. Costandino Argyris (2×)
NY · 2014 · confidence medium
II A To be reliable enough to establish probable cause for an arrest as a matter of state constitutional law, an anonymous hearsay informant’s report of criminal activity must: (1) provide sufficiently detailed information to indicate the informant’s reliability as an informant, or in other words, his or her veracity; and (2) convey information showing a reliable basis for the informant’s knowledge of the reported illegal activity (see People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 495 [2000]; Johnson, 66 NY2d at 406-407 ; People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231, 236-237 [1980]; People v West, 44 NY2d 656, 657 [19…
discussed Cited "see" People v. Yedvobnik
N.Y. App. Div. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
These observations, therefore, could not bolster the insufficient contents of Sergeant McGee’s affidavit so as to sustain a finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant (People v Wirchansky, supra, pp 134, 135; see People v West, 44 NY2d 656 ; People v Brandon, 38 NY2d 814 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Cobb
N.Y. App. Div. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
In its decision on the motion to suppress, County Court stated that: “The court has conducted a Darden hearing and has determined that the informant in question does exist and has been identified with particularity to the satisfaction of the court.” Although this finding may have satisfied the court’s obligation to “make a summary report as to the existence of the informer” {People v Darden, supra, p 181 ; see, also, People v West, 56 AD2d 955,956 , revd on other grounds 44 NY2d 656 ), it was nevertheless insufficient since there was no specific finding concerning the confidential in…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Laskaris
N.Y. App. Div. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
The reasonableness of the police action depends not on “ ‘inchoate [or] unparticularized suspicion or “hunch”, but [on] the specific reasonable inferences which [the police officer] is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience’ ” (People v Arthurs, 24 NY2d 688, 692 ; see, also, People v West, 44 NY2d 656 ; People v Loewel, 41 NY2d 609 ; People v Oden, 36 NY2d 382 ; People v Davis, 36 NY2d 280 , cert den 423 US 876 ; People v Brown, 24 NY2d 421 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Rodriguez
NY · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108, 114 , supra; see, also, e.g., People v West, 44 NY2d 656, 657 ; People v Wirchansky, 41 NY2d 130 , 131.) In many cases, the basis of knowledge of an informant is established by his own testimony.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Leon West, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 23, 1978.
376 N.E.2d 190
1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1881
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Douglas P. Rutnik, Public Defender (Paul E. Cheeseman and Frank V. Bífera of counsel), for appellant., Sol Greenberg, District Attorney (Melissa L. Campbell of counsel), for respondent.
Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 57 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

To establish probable cause based upon an informant’s tip, whether for issuance of a search warrant or for a warrantless arrest and search conducted in exigent circumstances, it must be shown that the informant is credible or reliable, and also that he had a sufficient basis for concluding that the subject of the tip is engaged in illegal activities. (See Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108, 114; People v Wirchansky, 41 NY2d 130, 131; People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 556; People v Castro, 29 NY2d 324, 326.)

In the present case, the informant apprised the police of the fact that the defendant was trafficking in drugs. He also informed the police that the defendant was traveling to and from New York City almost daily to buy drugs, and that he was using the trains and busses for transportation. He did not know, however, where the drugs were being kept, nor at what time the defendant made his trips to New York City. In fact, the informant never revealed how he came to acquire this information. Since the informant failed to disclose the basis for his acquisition of this information, the Aguilar test was not satisfied. (People v Wirchansky, 41 NY2d, at p 133, supra.) We cannot presume from the informant’s statement that his information was gleaned from personal observation. (See People v Hendricks, 25 NY2d 129, 136.)

The People seek, however, to bolster the informant’s tip through the independent observations of the police. (See, e.g., People v Brandon, 38 NY2d 814, 815; People v Slaughter, 37 NY2d 596, 599.) Immediately prior to the officers’ arrest and search of the defendant, they observed the defendant and a woman enter a cab which proceeded to Albany. Along the route, the police stopped the cab and searched the defendant. Besides this testimony, the only other testimony given by the arresting officers concerning their independent observations of[*658] the defendant related to their surveillance of the defendant’s residence on the previous day. Their surveillance disclosed nothing more significant than the occurrence of a conversation between the defendant and an unknown party in front of the defendant’s residence.

Clearly, the independent observations of the arresting officers were insufficient to bolster the information conveyed by the informant. None of their observations served to corroborate the informant’s statement that defendant was trafficking in drugs. The defendant’s presence at the Rensselafer train station must be considered equivocal at best. (See People v Corrado, 22 NY2d 308, 311.) Having no basis to credit the informant’s tip, either by the informant’s statement as to how he obtained his information or by their own independent observations, the police lacked probable cause to arrest and search the defendant. His conviction must be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.