Darden hearing in New York

2025The Darden hearing will be conducted in camera and the defense will be allowed to submit proposed questions, People v Darden , 34 NY2d 177 .

2025The Darden hearing will be conducted in camera and the defense will be allowed to submit proposed questions, People v Darden , 34 NY2d 177 .

2025Therefore, a Darden hearing, in addition to a Mapp hearing, is required to ensure that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause, while protecting the informant's identity, People v Edwards , 95 NY2d 486, at 494 .

2025Therefore, a Darden hearing, in addition to a Mapp hearing, is required to ensure that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause, while protecting the informant's identity, People v Edwards , 95 NY2d 486, at 494 .

2025The Darden rule is necessary to insure "that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause, while protecting the informant's identity" ( People v Edwards , 95 NY2d 486, 494 ; see People v Adrion , 82 NY2d 628, 635 ; People v Darden , 34 NY2d 117 ).

2025The Darden rule is necessary to insure "that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause, while protecting the informant's identity" ( People v Edwards , 95 NY2d 486, 494 ; see People v Adrion , 82 NY2d 628, 635 ; People v Darden , 34 NY2d 117 ).

2016If, however, probable cause can be established without the Cl’s statements, a Darden hearing is unnecessary (see Edwards, 95 NY2d at 493 ; Serrano, 93 NY2d at 77 ).

2016If, however, probable cause can be established without the Cl’s statements, a Darden hearing is unnecessary (see Edwards, 95 NY2d at 493 ; Serrano, 93 NY2d at 77 ).

2022We have reviewed the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing, as well as the court's summary report that was made available to defendant, and we conclude that the court properly determined that "the informant existed and . . . provided the information to the police concerning the . . . drug sales at the specified location" that was the subject of the search warrant ( People v Wilson , 48 AD3d 1099, 1100 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; see People v Williams , 184 AD3d 1125, 1127 [4th Dept 2020], affd 37 NY3d 314 [2021]).

2022We have reviewed the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing, as well as the court's summary report that was made available to defendant, and we conclude that the court properly determined that "the informant existed and . . . provided the information to the police concerning the . . . drug sales at the specified location" that was the subject of the search warrant ( People v Wilson , 48 AD3d 1099, 1100 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; see People v Williams , 184 AD3d 1125, 1127 [4th Dept 2020], affd 37 NY3d 314 [2021]).

2024"The purpose of the Darden hearing is to verify the truthfulness of the police witness's testimony about his or her dealing with a known [confidential] informant by ensuring that the informant exists and that he or she provided the police with information about the specified criminal activity" ( see People v Jackson , 189 AD3d 1705, 1705-1706 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1098 [2021]). "[A] Darden hearing is to protect defendants from informants who may have been wholly imaginary and from communications that are entirely fictitious" ( People v Kimes , 37 AD3d 1, 15 [1st Dept 2006], lv deni

2024"The purpose of the Darden hearing is to verify the truthfulness of the police witness's testimony about his or her dealing with a known [confidential] informant by ensuring that the informant exists and that he or she provided the police with information about the specified criminal activity" ( see People v Jackson , 189 AD3d 1705, 1705-1706 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1098 [2021]). "[A] Darden hearing is to protect defendants from informants who may have been wholly imaginary and from communications that are entirely fictitious" ( People v Kimes , 37 AD3d 1, 15 [1st Dept 2006], lv deni

2020Having reviewed the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing and the summary report made available to defendant and the People, we conclude that the court properly determined that the confidential informant existed and provided the information to the police ( see People v Brown [appeal No. 1], 93 AD3d 1231 , 1231 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 958 [2012]), and that the informant was reliable and had a basis for his or her knowledge that defendant was in possession of a gun and drugs or drug paraphernalia ( see People v Mitchum , 130 AD3d 1466, 1468 [4th Dept 2015]; People v Henry , 74 AD3d

2020Having reviewed the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing and the summary report made available to defendant and the People, we conclude that the court properly determined that the confidential informant existed and provided the information to the police ( see People v Brown [appeal No. 1], 93 AD3d 1231 , 1231 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 958 [2012]), and that the informant was reliable and had a basis for his or her knowledge that defendant was in possession of a gun and drugs or drug paraphernalia ( see People v Mitchum , 130 AD3d 1466, 1468 [4th Dept 2015]; People v Henry , 74 AD3d

2022Further, having reviewed the transcript from the Darden hearing, we conclude that "the confidential informant's basis of knowledge was sufficiently established at the in camera Darden hearing" ( People v Mitchum , 130 AD3d 1466 , 1468 [4th Dept 2015]) inasmuch as "the information from the informant, in its totality, 'provided ample basis to conclude that the informant had a basis for his or her knowledge that defendant was in possession of' " drugs ( People v Knight , 94 AD3d 1527 , 1529 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]; see People v Lowe , 50 AD3d 516, 516 [1st Dept 2008], affd 1

2021Upon review, the Darden hearing transcript demonstrates that the CI's communications established probable cause ( see People v Shoga , 89 AD3d at 1230 ; People v Lowe , 50 AD3d 516, 516 [2008], affd 12 NY3d 768 [2009]), and thus, County Court properly denied defendant's request to suppress the cocaine.

2025Where, as here, "information is received from a confidential informant but . . . police officer[s] thereafter make[ ] [their] own observations of criminal activity without further employment of the informant, those observations form the basis for probable cause to arrest, rendering a Darden hearing unnecessary" ( People v Dudden , 138 AD3d 1452 , 1453 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016], cert denied 580 US 1162 [2017]; see People v Crooks , 27 NY3d 609, 614-615 [2016]; People v Farrow , 98 NY2d 629, 631 [2002]).

2025Where, as here, "information is received from a confidential informant but . . . police officer[s] thereafter make[ ] [their] own observations of criminal activity without further employment of the informant, those observations form the basis for probable cause to arrest, rendering a Darden hearing unnecessary" ( People v Dudden , 138 AD3d 1452 , 1453 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016], cert denied 580 US 1162 [2017]; see People v Crooks , 27 NY3d 609, 614-615 [2016]; People v Farrow , 98 NY2d 629, 631 [2002]).

2024Although the informant failed to appear before the Court, the Court still had an opportunity to determine the existence, credibility, and reliability of the informant and found that the People successfully established the existence and reliability of the confidential informant and the basis of the informant's knowledge at the Darden hearing ( see generally People v. Johnson, 66 NY2d 398 , 402—403 [1985]; see People v. Carpenito , 80 NY2d 65 [1992](the People can establish the existence of the confidential informant through extrinsic evidence once the People have demonstrated the informant is l

2024Although the informant failed to appear before the Court, the Court still had an opportunity to determine the existence, credibility, and reliability of the informant and found that the People successfully established the existence and reliability of the confidential informant and the basis of the informant's knowledge at the Darden hearing ( see generally People v. Johnson, 66 NY2d 398 , 402—403 [1985]; see People v. Carpenito , 80 NY2d 65 [1992](the People can establish the existence of the confidential informant through extrinsic evidence once the People have demonstrated the informant is l

2025Where, as here, "information is received from a confidential informant but . . . police officer[s] thereafter make[ ] [their] own observations of criminal activity without further employment of the informant, those observations form the basis for probable cause to arrest, rendering a Darden hearing unnecessary" ( People v Dudden , 138 AD3d 1452 , 1453 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016], cert denied 580 US 1162 [2017]; see People v Crooks , 27 NY3d 609, 614-615 [2016]; People v Farrow , 98 NY2d 629, 631 [2002]).

2025Where, as here, "information is received from a confidential informant but . . . police officer[s] thereafter make[ ] [their] own observations of criminal activity without further employment of the informant, those observations form the basis for probable cause to arrest, rendering a Darden hearing unnecessary" ( People v Dudden , 138 AD3d 1452 , 1453 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016], cert denied 580 US 1162 [2017]; see People v Crooks , 27 NY3d 609, 614-615 [2016]; People v Farrow , 98 NY2d 629, 631 [2002]).

2025People v Fernandez , 67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]), and there was no unresolved issue left open by the motion court's granting a Darden hearing ( cf. People v Varon , 168 AD2d 349, 350 [1st Dept 1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 911 [1991]).

2025People v Fernandez , 67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]), and there was no unresolved issue left open by the motion court's granting a Darden hearing ( cf. People v Varon , 168 AD2d 349, 350 [1st Dept 1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 911 [1991]).

2022Further, having reviewed the transcript from the Darden hearing, we conclude that "the confidential informant's basis of knowledge was sufficiently established at the in camera Darden hearing" ( People v Mitchum , 130 AD3d 1466 , 1468 [4th Dept 2015]) inasmuch as "the information from the informant, in its totality, 'provided ample basis to conclude that the informant had a basis for his or her knowledge that defendant was in possession of' " drugs ( People v Knight , 94 AD3d 1527 , 1529 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]; see People v Lowe , 50 AD3d 516, 516 [1st Dept 2008], affd 1

2019Having reviewed the transcript from the Darden hearing, we conclude that "the confidential informant's basis of knowledge was sufficiently established at the in camera Darden hearing" ( People v Mitchum , 130 AD3d 1466 , 1468 [4th Dept 2015]) inasmuch as "the information from the informant, in its totality, provided ample basis to conclude that the informant had a basis for his or her knowledge that defendant was in possession of' [drugs]" ( People v Knight , 94 AD3d 1527 , 1529 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012], quoting People v Lowe , 50 AD3d 516, 516 [1st Dept 2008], affd 12 NY3

2015Thus, we cannot agree with defendant’s contention that it was error for County Court to deny his request for a Darden hearing, as the search warrant that led to the instant charges was supported by probable cause independent of any information directly provided by the Cl alone (see People v Farrow, 98 NY2d at 631 ; People v Anderson, 104 AD3d 968, 970-971 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1013 [2013]).

2015Thus, we cannot agree with defendant’s contention that it was error for County Court to deny his request for a Darden hearing, as the search warrant that led to the instant charges was supported by probable cause independent of any information directly provided by the Cl alone (see People v Farrow, 98 NY2d at 631 ; People v Anderson, 104 AD3d 968, 970-971 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1013 [2013]).

2016We find no merit to defendant’s due process and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims in connection with the sealing of the Darden hearing transcript (see People v Castillo, 80 NY2d 578, 584 [1992], cert denied 507 US 1033 [1993]) or this Court’s denial of his motion to enlarge the record to include the minutes of grand jury testimony (see People v Campbell, 90 NY2d 852, 853 [1997]).

2010The actions taken by the court to maintain the confidentiality of an informant’s identity in connection with a Darden hearing (People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177 [1974]) and other procedures relating to the search warrant were not unconstitutional (People v Castillo, 80 NY2d 578 [1992], cert denied 507 US 1033 [1993]).

2024"The purpose of the Darden hearing is to verify the truthfulness of the police witness's testimony about his or her dealing with a known [confidential] informant by ensuring that the informant exists and that he or she provided the police with information about the specified criminal activity" ( see People v Jackson , 189 AD3d 1705, 1705-1706 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1098 [2021]). "[A] Darden hearing is to protect defendants from informants who may have been wholly imaginary and from communications that are entirely fictitious" ( People v Kimes , 37 AD3d 1, 15 [1st Dept 2006], lv deni

2024"The purpose of the Darden hearing is to verify the truthfulness of the police witness's testimony about his or her dealing with a known [confidential] informant by ensuring that the informant exists and that he or she provided the police with information about the specified criminal activity" ( see People v Jackson , 189 AD3d 1705, 1705-1706 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1098 [2021]). "[A] Darden hearing is to protect defendants from informants who may have been wholly imaginary and from communications that are entirely fictitious" ( People v Kimes , 37 AD3d 1, 15 [1st Dept 2006], lv deni

2022Further, having reviewed the transcript from the Darden hearing, we conclude that "the confidential informant's basis of knowledge was sufficiently established at the in camera Darden hearing" ( People v Mitchum , 130 AD3d 1466 , 1468 [4th Dept 2015]) inasmuch as "the information from the informant, in its totality, 'provided ample basis to conclude that the informant had a basis for his or her knowledge that defendant was in possession of' " drugs ( People v Knight , 94 AD3d 1527 , 1529 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 998 [2012]; see People v Lowe , 50 AD3d 516, 516 [1st Dept 2008], affd 1

2022We further [*2]conclude that the testimony at the Darden hearing established that "the hearsay information supplied in the search warrant application satisfied the two prongs of the Aguilar - Spinelli test and that the search warrant was issued upon probable cause" ( Mitchum , 130 AD3d at 1468).

2019To the extent that defendant's argument concerns matters in the record before us and survives his guilty plea ( see generally People v Yates , 173 AD3d 1849 , 1850 [4th Dept 2019]), we reject it because he "has not made the required showing that there was no strategic or other legitimate explanation for counsel's failure to [insist on] a Darden hearing . . . , particularly in light of the [suppression] hearing in this case, which explored the identity and reliability of the [police] informant[]" ( People v Smith , 301 AD2d 671, 673 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 658 [2003]).

2019To the extent that defendant's argument concerns matters in the record before us and survives his guilty plea ( see generally People v Yates , 173 AD3d 1849 , 1850 [4th Dept 2019]), we reject it because he "has not made the required showing that there was no strategic or other legitimate explanation for counsel's failure to [insist on] a Darden hearing . . . , particularly in light of the [suppression] hearing in this case, which explored the identity and reliability of the [police] informant[]" ( People v Smith , 301 AD2d 671, 673 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied 99 NY2d 658 [2003]).

2017Following our review of the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing, as well as the court’s summary report, we conclude that the court properly determined that “the informant existed and that he provided the information to the police concerning the [presence of a gun] at the specified location” (People v Wilson, 48 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; see People v Santiago, 142 AD3d 1390, 1390-1391 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1127 [2016]; People v Brown [appeal No. 1], 93 AD3d 1231, 1231 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 958 [2012]).

2017Following our review of the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing, as well as the court’s summary report, we conclude that the court properly determined that “the informant existed and that he provided the information to the police concerning the [presence of a gun] at the specified location” (People v Wilson, 48 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; see People v Santiago, 142 AD3d 1390, 1390-1391 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1127 [2016]; People v Brown [appeal No. 1], 93 AD3d 1231, 1231 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 958 [2012]).

2017Following our review of the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing, as well as the court’s summary report, we conclude that the court properly determined that “the informant existed and that he provided the information to the police concerning the [presence of a gun] at the specified location” (People v Wilson, 48 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; see People v Santiago, 142 AD3d 1390, 1390-1391 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1127 [2016]; People v Brown [appeal No. 1], 93 AD3d 1231, 1231 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 958 [2012]).

2017Following our review of the sealed transcript of the Darden hearing, as well as the court’s summary report, we conclude that the court properly determined that “the informant existed and that he provided the information to the police concerning the [presence of a gun] at the specified location” (People v Wilson, 48 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]; see People v Santiago, 142 AD3d 1390, 1390-1391 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1127 [2016]; People v Brown [appeal No. 1], 93 AD3d 1231, 1231 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 958 [2012]).

2024We further conclude that "the hearsay information supplied in the search warrant application satisfied the two prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test and that the search warrant[s] w[ere] issued upon probable cause" ( People v Mitchum , 130 AD3d 1466, 1468 [4th Dept 2015]; see People v Monroe , 82 AD3d 1674 , 1675 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 808 [2011]; People v Flowers , 59 AD3d 1141, 1142-1143 [4th Dept 2009]).

2024We further conclude that "the hearsay information supplied in the search warrant application satisfied the two prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test and that the search warrant[s] w[ere] issued upon probable cause" ( People v Mitchum , 130 AD3d 1466, 1468 [4th Dept 2015]; see People v Monroe , 82 AD3d 1674 , 1675 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 808 [2011]; People v Flowers , 59 AD3d 1141, 1142-1143 [4th Dept 2009]).

2024We further conclude that "the hearsay information supplied in the search warrant application satisfied the two prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test and that the search warrant[s] w[ere] issued upon probable cause" ( People v Mitchum , 130 AD3d 1466, 1468 [4th Dept 2015]; see People v Monroe , 82 AD3d 1674 , 1675 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 808 [2011]; People v Flowers , 59 AD3d 1141, 1142-1143 [4th Dept 2009]).

2024We further conclude that "the hearsay information supplied in the search warrant application satisfied the two prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test and that the search warrant[s] w[ere] issued upon probable cause" ( People v Mitchum , 130 AD3d 1466, 1468 [4th Dept 2015]; see People v Monroe , 82 AD3d 1674 , 1675 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 808 [2011]; People v Flowers , 59 AD3d 1141, 1142-1143 [4th Dept 2009]).

1999The court’s denial of appellant’s request for a Darden hearing (People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177 ) to determine whether the informant in fact existed was an appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion (see, People v Adrion, 82 NY2d 628, 636 ; People v Fulton, 58 NY2d 914 ).

1999The court’s denial of appellant’s request for a Darden hearing (People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177 ) to determine whether the informant in fact existed was an appropriate exercise of the court’s discretion (see, People v Adrion, 82 NY2d 628, 636 ; People v Fulton, 58 NY2d 914 ).

2016Where, as here, information is received from a confidential informant but the police officer thereafter makes his or her own observations of criminal activity without further employment of the informant, those observations form the basis for probable cause to arrest, rendering a Darden hearing unnecessary (see People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177, 180-181 [1974], rearg denied 34 NY2d 995 [1974]; People v Long, 100 AD3d 1343 , 1345-1346 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1063 [2013]).

2016Where, as here, information is received from a confidential informant but the police officer thereafter makes his or her own observations of criminal activity without further employment of the informant, those observations form the basis for probable cause to arrest, rendering a Darden hearing unnecessary (see People v Darden, 34 NY2d 177, 180-181 [1974], rearg denied 34 NY2d 995 [1974]; People v Long, 100 AD3d 1343 , 1345-1346 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1063 [2013]).