AguilarSpinelli test in New York

32 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1983–2015 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (22)

Case	Followed	Cited
Spinelli v. United Statesred scotus · 1969 · cited in 13 New York opinions naming this issue, 1988–2014 2 sentences 2014Where 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]). 2014Where 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]).	3	13
People v. Taylorgreen ny · 1989 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 1996–2014 2 sentences 2014Where 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]). 2014Where 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]).	2	3
People v. Titusgreen nyappdiv · 2011 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015In addition, defendant’s further contention that the hearsay statement of an unidentified female failed the AguilarSpinelli test is also unpreserved for our review inasmuch as it is raised for the first time on appeal (see People v Stevens, 87 AD3d 754, 756 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 861 [2011]). 2015In addition, defendant’s further contention that the hearsay statement of an unidentified female failed the AguilarSpinelli test is also unpreserved for our review inasmuch as it is raised for the first time on appeal (see People v Stevens, 87 AD3d 754, 756 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 861 [2011]).	2	2
People v. Doylegreen nyappdiv · 1995 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Where 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]). 2014Where 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]).	2	2
People v. Vanhoesengreen nyappdiv · 2006 · cited in 2 New York opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Where 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]). 2014Where 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]).	2	2
Aguilar v. Texasred scotus · 1964 · cited in 12 New York opinions naming this issue, 1988–2014 2 sentences 2014Where 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]). 2014Where 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]).	1	12
People v. Johnsongreen ny · 1985 · cited in 4 New York opinions naming this issue, 1988–2006 2 sentences 2006Where a demonstration of probable or reasonable cause is based on hearsay information, New York courts apply the AguilarSpinelli test, requiring that the hearsay affiant establish “that the informant had some basis for the knowledge . . . transmitted . . . and that [the informant] was reliable” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696 [1993]; People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 402 [1985]; see generally People v Davis, 170 Misc 2d 987, 994 [1996]; People v Born, 166 Misc 2d 757, 759-761 [1995]). 2006Where a demonstration of probable or reasonable cause is based on hearsay information, New York courts apply the AguilarSpinelli test, requiring that the hearsay affiant establish “that the informant had some basis for the knowledge . . . transmitted . . . and that [the informant] was reliable” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696 [1993]; People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 402 [1985]; see generally People v Davis, 170 Misc 2d 987, 994 [1996]; People v Born, 166 Misc 2d 757, 759-761 [1995]).	1	4
People v. Bigelowgreen ny · 1985 · cited in 4 New York opinions naming this issue, 1988–2006 2 sentences 2006Where a demonstration of probable or reasonable cause is based on hearsay information, New York courts apply the AguilarSpinelli test, requiring that the hearsay affiant establish “that the informant had some basis for the knowledge . . . transmitted . . . and that [the informant] was reliable” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696 [1993]; People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 402 [1985]; see generally People v Davis, 170 Misc 2d 987, 994 [1996]; People v Born, 166 Misc 2d 757, 759-761 [1995]). 2006Where a demonstration of probable or reasonable cause is based on hearsay information, New York courts apply the AguilarSpinelli test, requiring that the hearsay affiant establish “that the informant had some basis for the knowledge . . . transmitted . . . and that [the informant] was reliable” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696 [1993]; People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 402 [1985]; see generally People v Davis, 170 Misc 2d 987, 994 [1996]; People v Born, 166 Misc 2d 757, 759-761 [1995]).	1	4
People v. Grimingergreen ny · 1988 · cited in 4 New York opinions naming this issue, 1992–1999 2 sentences 1999Thus, the affidavit is deficient in failing to satisfy the first prong of the AguilarSpinelli test (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 ; Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 ), which we continue to apply (see, People v Griminger, 71 NY2d 635, 639 [warrant application must demonstrate “(i) the veracity or reliability of the source of the information, and (ii) the basis of the informant’s knowledge”]). 1999Thus, the affidavit is deficient in failing to satisfy the first prong of the AguilarSpinelli test (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 ; Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 ), which we continue to apply (see, People v Griminger, 71 NY2d 635, 639 [warrant application must demonstrate “(i) the veracity or reliability of the source of the information, and (ii) the basis of the informant’s knowledge”]).	1	4
People v. DiFalcogreen ny · 1993 · cited in 3 New York opinions naming this issue, 1995–2006 2 sentences 2006Where a demonstration of probable or reasonable cause is based on hearsay information, New York courts apply the AguilarSpinelli test, requiring that the hearsay affiant establish “that the informant had some basis for the knowledge . . . transmitted . . . and that [the informant] was reliable” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696 [1993]; People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 402 [1985]; see generally People v Davis, 170 Misc 2d 987, 994 [1996]; People v Born, 166 Misc 2d 757, 759-761 [1995]). 2006Where a demonstration of probable or reasonable cause is based on hearsay information, New York courts apply the AguilarSpinelli test, requiring that the hearsay affiant establish “that the informant had some basis for the knowledge . . . transmitted . . . and that [the informant] was reliable” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696 [1993]; People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 402 [1985]; see generally People v Davis, 170 Misc 2d 987, 994 [1996]; People v Born, 166 Misc 2d 757, 759-761 [1995]).	1	3
People v. Chippgreen ny · 1990 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey	1	1
People v. Britogreen nyappdiv · 2009 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey	1	1
People v. Browngreen ny · 2009 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey	1	1
People v. Cantregreen nyappdiv · 1983 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey	1	1
People v. Rivenburghgreen nyappdiv · 2003 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey	1	1
People v. Banksgreen nyappdiv · 2005 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey	1	1
People v. Davisgreen nypoughcityct · 1996 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Where a demonstration of probable or reasonable cause is based on hearsay information, New York courts apply the AguilarSpinelli test, requiring that the hearsay affiant establish “that the informant had some basis for the knowledge . . . transmitted . . . and that [the informant] was reliable” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696 [1993]; People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 402 [1985]; see generally People v Davis, 170 Misc 2d 987, 994 [1996]; People v Born, 166 Misc 2d 757, 759-761 [1995]). 2006Where a demonstration of probable or reasonable cause is based on hearsay information, New York courts apply the AguilarSpinelli test, requiring that the hearsay affiant establish “that the informant had some basis for the knowledge . . . transmitted . . . and that [the informant] was reliable” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696 [1993]; People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 402 [1985]; see generally People v Davis, 170 Misc 2d 987, 994 [1996]; People v Born, 166 Misc 2d 757, 759-761 [1995]).	1	1
People v. Borngreen nyjustctperinto · 1995 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006Where a demonstration of probable or reasonable cause is based on hearsay information, New York courts apply the AguilarSpinelli test, requiring that the hearsay affiant establish “that the informant had some basis for the knowledge . . . transmitted . . . and that [the informant] was reliable” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696 [1993]; People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 402 [1985]; see generally People v Davis, 170 Misc 2d 987, 994 [1996]; People v Born, 166 Misc 2d 757, 759-761 [1995]). 2006Where a demonstration of probable or reasonable cause is based on hearsay information, New York courts apply the AguilarSpinelli test, requiring that the hearsay affiant establish “that the informant had some basis for the knowledge . . . transmitted . . . and that [the informant] was reliable” (People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696 [1993]; People v Johnson, 66 NY2d 398, 402 [1985]; see generally People v Davis, 170 Misc 2d 987, 994 [1996]; People v Born, 166 Misc 2d 757, 759-761 [1995]).	1	1
People v. Hollinsgreen nyappdiv · 1995 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
People v. Adriongreen ny · 1993 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995	1	1
United States v. Ventrescagreen scotus · 1965 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1
People v. Simongreen nyappdiv · 1985 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (36)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Parris green ny · 1994 2 sentences 1994An experienced undercover police officer was the purchaser in a buy-and-bust drug operation, who radioed a detailed description of defendant to the arresting officers, provided probable cause and satisfied the requirements of the AguilarSpinelli test (see, People v Parris, 83 NY2d 342 ; People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47 , cert denied 469 US 852 ). 1994An experienced undercover police officer was the purchaser in a buy-and-bust drug operation, who radioed a detailed description of defendant to the arresting officers, provided probable cause and satisfied the requirements of the AguilarSpinelli test (see, People v Parris, 83 NY2d 342 ; People v Petralia, 62 NY2d 47 , cert denied 469 US 852 ).	3	1994–2000
People v. Long green nyappdiv · 2012 2 sentences 2015Finally, defendant’s contention that the information upon which the warrant was based was stale is also unpreserved for our review (see People v Long, 100 AD3d 1343 , 1346 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1063 [2013]). 2015Finally, defendant’s contention that the information upon which the warrant was based was stale is also unpreserved for our review (see People v Long, 100 AD3d 1343 , 1346 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1063 [2013]).	2	2015–2015
People v. Preston green ny · 2011 2 sentences 2015In addition, defendant’s further contention that the hearsay statement of an unidentified female failed the AguilarSpinelli test is also unpreserved for our review inasmuch as it is raised for the first time on appeal (see People v Stevens, 87 AD3d 754, 756 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 861 [2011]). 2015In addition, defendant’s further contention that the hearsay statement of an unidentified female failed the AguilarSpinelli test is also unpreserved for our review inasmuch as it is raised for the first time on appeal (see People v Stevens, 87 AD3d 754, 756 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 861 [2011]).	2	2015–2015
People v. Hicks green ny · 1975 2 sentences 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey	2	1983–2010
People v. Elwell green ny · 1980 2 sentences 2000In this case, the Supreme Court erred to the extent that it applied the AguilarSpinelli test (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 ; Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 ) as defined in People v Elwell (supra). 2000In this case, the Supreme Court erred to the extent that it applied the AguilarSpinelli test (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 ; Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 ) as defined in People v Elwell (supra).	2	1995–2000
Illinois v. Gates green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 1988Prior to Illinois v Gates ( 462 US 213 , reh denied 63 US 1237 , supra), Federal courts applied the two-pronged AguilarSpinelli test in probable cause determinations when evaluating hearsay information from an undisclosed informant (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 , supra; Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 , supra). 1988Prior to Illinois v Gates ( 462 US 213 , reh denied 63 US 1237 , supra), Federal courts applied the two-pronged AguilarSpinelli test in probable cause determinations when evaluating hearsay information from an undisclosed informant (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108 , supra; Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410 , supra).	2	1986–1988
People v. Brown green nyappdiv · 1983 2 sentences 1988The People argue that it is readily inferable, however, that the interviews conducted in the course of a normal crime investigation such as this were of concerned citizen witnesses, whose reliability may be presumed (see, People v Brown, 95 AD2d 569, 571-572 ). 1988The People argue that it is readily inferable, however, that the interviews conducted in the course of a normal crime investigation such as this were of concerned citizen witnesses, whose reliability may be presumed (see, People v Brown, 95 AD2d 569, 571-572 ).	2	1986–1988
People v. Brink green ny · 2005 2 sentences 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey	1	2010–2010
People v. Cantre green ny · 1985 2 sentences 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey	1	2010–2010
People v. Bailey green nyappdiv · 2002 2 sentences 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey 2010As the Court of Appeals has repeatedly held, where a private citizen “provides the authorities with information as to observed criminal activity . . . with no expectation of private gain,” the two-prong AguilarSpinelli test is not required for such a witness to be deemed reliable (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d at 94 ; see People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 340 [1990]; see also People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Banks, 14 AD3d 726, 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v Rivenburgh, 1 AD3d 696, 699 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 579 [2003]; People v Bailey	1	2010–2010
Florida v. JL green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2002Further, relying on Florida v J.L. ( 529 US 266 [2000]), defendant asserts that “[a]nonymous calls concerning described individuals supposedly in possession of a weapon, do not justify a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot with regard to anyone who might fit that description at the described location” (defendant’s mem at 13-14). 2002Further, relying on Florida v J.L. ( 529 US 266 [2000]), defendant asserts that “[a]nonymous calls concerning described individuals supposedly in possession of a weapon, do not justify a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot with regard to anyone who might fit that description at the described location” (defendant’s mem at 13-14).	1	2002–2002
People v. Ketcham green ny · 1999	1	2000–2000
People v. Moore green ny · 1973 2 sentences 2000The Supreme Court, in effect, required the People to establish probable cause that the defendant had committed a crime, even though the People needed to establish only the existence of reasonable suspicion in order to justify the stop, a significantly lower burden (see, People v Moore, supra), and one which we find the People have satisfied. 2000The Supreme Court, in effect, required the People to establish probable cause that the defendant had committed a crime, even though the People needed to establish only the existence of reasonable suspicion in order to justify the stop, a significantly lower burden (see, People v Moore, supra), and one which we find the People have satisfied.	1	2000–2000
People v. Martinez green ny · 1992	1	1999–1999
People v. Miner green nyappdiv · 1987	1	1996–1996
People v. Lentz neutral nyappdiv · 1991	1	1996–1996
People v. Bartolomeo red ny · 1981	1	1996–1996
People v. Moses neutral nyappdiv · 1995	1	1995–1995
Draper v. United States green scotus · 1959	1	1994–1994
McCray v. Illinois green scotus · 1967	1	1994–1994
People v. Gaines neutral nyappdiv · 1986	1	1994–1994
People v. Harrison neutral nyappdiv · 1990	1	1994–1994
Goldstein v. Kelleher green scotus · 1984	1	1994–1994
People v. Petralia green ny · 1984	1	1994–1994
People v. Hetrick green ny · 1992	1	1993–1993
Franks v. Delaware green scotus · 1978	1	1992–1992
People v. Alfinito green ny · 1965	1	1992–1992
People v. Coble neutral nyappdiv · 1990	1	1992–1992
People v. Wheatman green ny · 1971	1	1989–1989
People v. Hanlon green ny · 1975	1	1988–1988
People v. Ward neutral nyappdiv · 1984	1	1986–1986
People v. Bigelow green nyappdiv · 1984	1	1986–1986
People v. Santana neutral nyappdiv · 1984	1	1986–1986
People v. Contompasis green nyappdiv · 1985	1	1986–1986
People v. Landy green ny · 1983	1	1986–1986
United States v. Leon green scotus · 1984	1	1985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NY § N.Y. Penal Law § 220.16 (4) NY § N.Y. Penal Law § 10.00 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 32 (1983–2015) MA 6 (1988–2015) CT 5 (1986–2001) WA 5 (1991–2008) CO 4 (1973–1976) NM 4 (2000–2011) ID 2 (1984–1984) PA 2 (1993–1998) IL 2 (1985–2006) MD 2 (2002–2007)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check