People v. Doyle, 222 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Doyle, 222 A.D.2d 875 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PeoplevNichol
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Where probable cause for a search warrant is based upon the personal knowledge and first-hand observations of the deponent, and not upon hearsay, the Aguilar-Spinelli test does not apply (see People v Taylor, 73 NY2d 683, 688 [1989]; People v Vanhoesen, 31 AD3d 805, 806 [2006]; People v Doyle, 222 AD2d 875, 875 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 878 [1996]; see generally Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nichol
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Where probable cause for a search warrant is based upon the personal knowledge and first-hand observations of the deponent, and not upon hearsay, the AguilarSpinelli test does not apply (see People v Taylor, 73 NY2d 683, 688 [1989]; People v Vanhoesen, 31 AD3d 805, 806 [2006]; People v Doyle, 222 AD2d 875, 875 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 878 [1996]; see generally Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nichol
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Where probable cause for a search warrant is based upon the personal knowledge and first-hand observations of the deponent, and not upon hearsay, the AguilarSpinelli test does not apply (see People v Taylor, 73 NY2d 683, 688 [1989]; People v Vanhoesen, 31 AD3d 805, 806 [2006]; People v Doyle, 222 AD2d 875, 875 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 878 [1996]; see generally Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 [1969]; Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 [1964]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Shoga
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s argument, further inquiry into the Cl’s reliability and basis of knowledge under the Aguilar-Spinelli standard was not required, as the Cl’s identity was disclosed to the issuing court in a sworn statement detailing firsthand observations (see People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Bourdon, 258 AD2d 810, 811 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 897 [1999]; People v Doyle, 222 AD2d 875, 875 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 878 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Guntlow v. Barbera
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Their statements represented fact-based accounts of what transpired from two disinterested eyewitnesses who, in Ryan’s words, “were able to corroborate the victim’s version of [the] events.” While the majority relies on the Aguilar-Spinelli test to claim that a question of fact exists as to whether the information Ryan received during his investigation was reliable, the fact is that this standard has been held to be inapplicable to testimony obtained from private citizens who have no interest or ulterior motive that could raise concerns about their credibility (see People v Taylor, 73 …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Vanhoesen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
As the police developed probable cause based on the personal knowledge and firsthand observations of an officer, there was no need to resort to the Aguilar-Spinelli test to weigh the informant’s information (s ee People v Bartolomeo, 53 NY2d 225, 234 [1981]; see also People v Doyle, 222 AD2d 875, 875 [1995], lv denied 88 NY2d 878 [1996]; People v Crawford, 162 AD2d 1028, 1029 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 854 [1990]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Robert Doyle
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 14, 1995.
222 A.D.2d 875
Peters.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Hemmett, Jr., J.), rendered August 22, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree.

On October 21, 1992, at approximately 9:00 p.m., a search warrant was executed at defendant’s home in the Town of Kingsbury, Washington County. A quantity of marihuana and drug paraphernalia were discovered during the search which resulted in a four-count indictment charging defendant with a variety of drug-related crimes, including criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree. Defendant made an omnibus motion requesting, inter alia, suppression of the property seized; however, this motion was denied followed a hearing. Thereafter, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of marihuana in the third degree in satisfaction of the indictment and this appeal followed.

Initially, defendant argues that the search warrant application was insufficient to establish probable cause under the two-pronged reliability and basis of knowledge test, known as the Aguilar-Spinelli standard (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108; Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410; see also, People v Griminger, 71 NY2d 635, 637). However, since the information that served as the basis for the warrant came from a named informant’s sworn statement detailing certain first-hand observations, as opposed to being culled from hearsay statements relayed by a police officer, the Aguilar-Spinelli standard is inapplicable here (see, People v Bartolomeo, 53 NY2d 225, 233-234; see also, People v Baker, 174 AD2d 815, 816, lv denied 78 NY2d 920; People v Deliz, 172 AD2d 877, 878, lv denied 78 NY2d 921). While it is true that the informant’s affidavit included some hearsay information, the personal observations and activities described therein, along with other information included with the warrant application, provided sufficient probable cause for issuance of the warrant (see, People v Deliz, supra, at 878).

Finally, defendant argues that County Court erred in accepting his plea of guilty because proof that defendant knew the weight of the drugs he possessed in accordance with the dictates of People v Ryan (82 NY2d 497) was allegedly not presented to the Grand Jury. Assuming that Ryan applies to the circumstances of this case, we note that this argument is unpreserved for appellate review because defendant pleaded guilty and failed to move to withdraw his plea before senten[*876] cing and failed to move to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v Hidalgo, 213 AD2d 493, lv denied 85 NY2d 974). Furthermore, the record reflects that in light of defendant’s commercial-like growing activities, he knew the weight of the marihuana he possessed (see, People v Ryan, supra).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.