Aguilar-Spinelli test in New York

2024The Aguilar-Spinelli test, enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in warrant cases, has been applied by New York courts to determine "whether hearsay information possessed by the police is sufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest." People v. Parris , 83 NY2d 342, 346 (1994), citing Jones v. United States , 362 US 257, 270 .

2024The Aguilar-Spinelli test, enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in warrant cases, has been applied by New York courts to determine "whether hearsay information possessed by the police is sufficient to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest." People v. Parris , 83 NY2d 342, 346 (1994), citing Jones v. United States , 362 US 257, 270 .

2025In recognition of the risks presented by anonymous reports of criminal activity, we have evaluated an anonymous informant's reliability and basis of knowledge under the Aguilar-Spinelli framework ( see Aguilar v Texas , 378 US 108 [1964]; Spinelli v United States , 393 US 410 [1969]), to determine whether a tip provides probable cause ( see People v Griminger , 71 NY2d 635 [1988]).

2025In recognition of the risks presented by anonymous reports of criminal activity, we have evaluated an anonymous informant's reliability and basis of knowledge under the Aguilar-Spinelli framework ( see Aguilar v Texas , 378 US 108 [1964]; Spinelli v United States , 393 US 410 [1969]), to determine whether a tip provides probable cause ( see People v Griminger , 71 NY2d 635 [1988]).

2025On this record, we hold that as a matter of law the evidence provided in support of the 205 Curtis Street search warrant failed to satisfy the basis of knowledge requirement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test ( see Aguilar v Texas , 378 US 108 [1964]; Spinelli v United States , 393 US 410 [1969]; People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d 417, 420 [1985]).

2025On this record, we hold that as a matter of law the evidence provided in support of the 205 Curtis Street search warrant failed to satisfy the basis of knowledge requirement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test ( see Aguilar v Texas , 378 US 108 [1964]; Spinelli v United States , 393 US 410 [1969]; People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d 417, 420 [1985]).

2025Although the Supreme Court abandoned the Aguilar-Spinelli test in Illinois v Gates ( 462 US 213 [1983]) in exchange for a totality of the circumstances test, this Court has long continued to apply it in the probable cause context ( see Johnson , 66 NY2d at 400 ). [FN2] Although some members of the Argyris Court reached different conclusions as to whether the anonymous tips at issue were sufficiently reliable to allow the police to initiate the car stops, a majority of the Court concluded that the heightened test applies in the reasonable suspicion context, just as that required for probable ca

2025Although the Supreme Court abandoned the Aguilar-Spinelli test in Illinois v Gates ( 462 US 213 [1983]) in exchange for a totality of the circumstances test, this Court has long continued to apply it in the probable cause context ( see Johnson , 66 NY2d at 400 ). [FN2] Although some members of the Argyris Court reached different conclusions as to whether the anonymous tips at issue were sufficiently reliable to allow the police to initiate the car stops, a majority of the Court concluded that the heightened test applies in the reasonable suspicion context, just as that required for probable ca

2022The People established probable cause for defendant's arrest with hearsay information that satisfied the Aguilar-Spinelli test ( see People v Ketcham , 93 NY2d 416, 420 [1999]).

2022The People established probable cause for defendant's arrest with hearsay information that satisfied the Aguilar-Spinelli test ( see People v Ketcham , 93 NY2d 416, 420 [1999]).

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]).

2025On this record, we hold that as a matter of law the evidence provided in support of the 205 Curtis Street search warrant failed to satisfy the basis of knowledge requirement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test ( see Aguilar v Texas , 378 US 108 [1964]; Spinelli v United States , 393 US 410 [1969]; People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d 417, 420 [1985]).

2025On this record, we hold that as a matter of law the evidence provided in support of the 205 Curtis Street search warrant failed to satisfy the basis of knowledge requirement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test ( see Aguilar v Texas , 378 US 108 [1964]; Spinelli v United States , 393 US 410 [1969]; People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d 417, 420 [1985]).

2025In our most recent cases addressing whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle based on an anonymous tip, we have been presented with fact patterns under which the result would have been the same whether we evaluated the reliability of the anonymous tip under the totality of the circumstances or applied the Aguilar-Spinelli framework ( see People v Walls , 37 NY3d 987, 989 [2021]; Argyris , 24 NY3d at 1140-1141 ) [FN2] .

2025In our most recent cases addressing whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle based on an anonymous tip, we have been presented with fact patterns under which the result would have been the same whether we evaluated the reliability of the anonymous tip under the totality of the circumstances or applied the Aguilar-Spinelli framework ( see People v Walls , 37 NY3d 987, 989 [2021]; Argyris , 24 NY3d at 1140-1141 ) [FN2] .

2015As is relevant here, the veracity component of the Aguilar-Spinelli test can be satisfied by proof “that the specific information given [by the Cl] is reliable” (People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696-697 [1993]; accord People v Wolfe, 103 AD3d 1031, 1033 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]).

2015As is relevant here, the veracity component of the Aguilar-Spinelli test can be satisfied by proof “that the specific information given [by the Cl] is reliable” (People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696-697 [1993]; accord People v Wolfe, 103 AD3d 1031, 1033 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]).

2014As we explained in People v Rodriguez ( 52 NY2d 483 [1981]) and People v DiFalco ( 80 NY2d 693 [1993]), each prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test acts as a vital independent safeguard against unwarranted governmental intrusions based on unreliable hearsay.

2014As we explained in People v Rodriguez ( 52 NY2d 483 [1981]) and People v DiFalco ( 80 NY2d 693 [1993]), each prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test acts as a vital independent safeguard against unwarranted governmental intrusions based on unreliable hearsay.

2025On this record, we hold that as a matter of law the evidence provided in support of the 205 Curtis Street search warrant failed to satisfy the basis of knowledge requirement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test ( see Aguilar v Texas , 378 US 108 [1964]; Spinelli v United States , 393 US 410 [1969]; People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d 417, 420 [1985]).

2025On this record, we hold that as a matter of law the evidence provided in support of the 205 Curtis Street search warrant failed to satisfy the basis of knowledge requirement of the Aguilar-Spinelli test ( see Aguilar v Texas , 378 US 108 [1964]; Spinelli v United States , 393 US 410 [1969]; People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d 417, 420 [1985]).

2023More particularly, with respect to the reliability prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test, the court properly determined that, despite her age and unsworn hearsay statement recounted by one of the police officers, the 10-year-old witness was "[a]n identified citizen informant" who "is presumed to be personally reliable" ( People v Parris , 83 NY2d 342, 350 [1994]; see People v Hetrick , 80 NY2d 344, 349 [1992]; People v Walker , 278 AD2d 852 , 852 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 869 [2001]).

2023More particularly, with respect to the reliability prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test, the court properly determined that, despite her age and unsworn hearsay statement recounted by one of the police officers, the 10-year-old witness was "[a]n identified citizen informant" who "is presumed to be personally reliable" ( People v Parris , 83 NY2d 342, 350 [1994]; see People v Hetrick , 80 NY2d 344, 349 [1992]; People v Walker , 278 AD2d 852 , 852 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 869 [2001]).

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 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]).

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 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]).

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]).

2022Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence recovered from his vehicle and the passenger of his vehicle. "'Probable cause for a warrantless arrest may be supplied, in whole or part, through hearsay information, provided it satisfies the two-part Aguilar-Spinelli test requiring a showing that the informant is reliable and has a basis of knowledge for the information imparted'" ( People v Zirpola , 171 AD3d 1245 , 1247 [2019] [brackets omitted], lv denied 34 NY3d 1164 [2020], quoting People v Bell , 5 AD3d 858, 859 [2004]).

2022Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence recovered from his vehicle and the passenger of his vehicle. "'Probable cause for a warrantless arrest may be supplied, in whole or part, through hearsay information, provided it satisfies the two-part Aguilar-Spinelli test requiring a showing that the informant is reliable and has a basis of knowledge for the information imparted'" ( People v Zirpola , 171 AD3d 1245 , 1247 [2019] [brackets omitted], lv denied 34 NY3d 1164 [2020], quoting People v Bell , 5 AD3d 858, 859 [2004]).

2018Contrary to defendant's contention, the Aguilar-Spinelli test is inapplicable because the CI's name was disclosed to County Court in the CI's sworn statement accompanying the search warrant [*2] application ( see People v Shoga , 89 AD3d 1225 , 1230 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 886 [2012]; People v Banks , 14 AD3d 726 , 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v David , 234 AD2d 787, 787-788 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1034 [1997]).

2018Contrary to defendant's contention, the Aguilar-Spinelli test is inapplicable because the CI's name was disclosed to County Court in the CI's sworn statement accompanying the search warrant [*2] application ( see People v Shoga , 89 AD3d 1225 , 1230 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 886 [2012]; People v Banks , 14 AD3d 726 , 727 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 851 [2005]; People v David , 234 AD2d 787, 787-788 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 1034 [1997]).

2010Therefore, because defendant’s information was provided by a private identifiable citizen, we conclude that the Aguilar-Spinelli test does not apply (see People v Hicks, 38 NY2d 90, 94 [1975]).

2010Therefore, because defendant’s information was provided by a private identifiable citizen, we conclude that the Aguilar-Spinelli test does not apply (see People v Hicks, 38 NY2d 90, 94 [1975]).

2014Because we have used the Aguilar-Spinelli test to judge the reliability of hearsay tips for the past 39 years (see People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 556 [1975]), defendants have relied on that standard as a basic guarantee of their rights, anchoring their expectations regarding the legality of a seizure and the admissibility of evidence obtained therefrom in the Aguilar-Spinelli framework.

2014Because we have used the Aguilar-Spinelli test to judge the reliability of hearsay tips for the past 39 years (see People v Hanlon, 36 NY2d 549, 556 [1975]), defendants have relied on that standard as a basic guarantee of their rights, anchoring their expectations regarding the legality of a seizure and the admissibility of evidence obtained therefrom in the Aguilar-Spinelli framework.

2019The necessary predicate for justifying the police action under review was, first, whether the officers had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and, thus, a "common-law right to inquire" ( People v De Bour , 40 NY2d 210, 223 ), and then, after they approached the defendant and he touched his waistband and fled, " the less demanding standard of reasonable suspicion'" ( People v Argyris , 99 AD3d 808 , 810, affd 24 NY3d 1138 , quoting People v Legette , 244 AD2d 505, 507 ; see People v Cruz , 137 AD3d 1158 ; People v Colucci , 268 AD2d 531, 532 ).

2019The necessary predicate for justifying the police action under review was, first, whether the officers had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and, thus, a "common-law right to inquire" ( People v De Bour , 40 NY2d 210, 223 ), and then, after they approached the defendant and he touched his waistband and fled, " the less demanding standard of reasonable suspicion'" ( People v Argyris , 99 AD3d 808 , 810, affd 24 NY3d 1138 , quoting People v Legette , 244 AD2d 505, 507 ; see People v Cruz , 137 AD3d 1158 ; People v Colucci , 268 AD2d 531, 532 ).

2017Further, the description of the first floor apartment as the premises to be searched was sufficiently precise (see People v Carpenter, 51 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 786 [2008]), and defendant’s Aguilar-Spinelli claim is unpreserved for our review (see People v Wolfe, 103 AD3d 1031, 1034 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]); in any event, it is without merit (see People v Cavallaro, 123 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2014]).

2017Further, the description of the first floor apartment as the premises to be searched was sufficiently precise (see People v Carpenter, 51 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 786 [2008]), and defendant’s Aguilar-Spinelli claim is unpreserved for our review (see People v Wolfe, 103 AD3d 1031, 1034 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]); in any event, it is without merit (see People v Cavallaro, 123 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2014]).

2014In applying the Aguilar-Spinelli rule, we have moderated the rigidity of the two-pronged test by holding that evidence corroborating the informant’s statements may, in some cases, satisfy either the basis-of-knowledge or the veracity/reliability prong (People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231, 234-235 [1980] [basis-of-knowledge prong may be satisfied only by “confirmation of sufficient details suggestive of or directly related to the criminal activity informed about”]; People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 695 [1993] [“the veracity component . . . may ... be satisfied by police corroboration of details that are

2014In applying the Aguilar-Spinelli rule, we have moderated the rigidity of the two-pronged test by holding that evidence corroborating the informant’s statements may, in some cases, satisfy either the basis-of-knowledge or the veracity/reliability prong (People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231, 234-235 [1980] [basis-of-knowledge prong may be satisfied only by “confirmation of sufficient details suggestive of or directly related to the criminal activity informed about”]; People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 695 [1993] [“the veracity component . . . may ... be satisfied by police corroboration of details that are

2021He did not raise his present contention that the People were required to prove that the information provided to the officer satisfied the Aguilar-Spinelli test in order for the search to be lawful, even though he was then aware of the basis for the search ( cf. People v Landy , 59 NY2d 369, 374 [1983]; see generally People v John , 27 NY3d 294, 303 [2016]).

2014In People v Landy ( 59 NY2d 369, 375-377 [1983]), we relied on the Aguilar-Spinelli rule in concluding that probable cause was lacking, but then left that rule unmentioned in upholding the search and arrest on the ground that a finding of reasonable suspicion was supported by the record (see also People v Chase, 85 NY2d 493, 501 [1995] [holding probable cause to be lacking on Aguilar-Spinelli grounds; remitting the case, without further mention of Aguilar-Spinelli, for determination of the reasonable suspicion issue]).

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 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]).

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 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]).

2015“Notably, where the information is based upon double hearsay, the foregoing requirements must be met with respect to each individual providing information” (People v Mabeus, 63 AD3d 1447, 1450 [2009]; see People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 421 [1999]; People v Parris, 83 NY2d 342, 347-348 [1994]).

2015“Notably, where the information is based upon double hearsay, the foregoing requirements must be met with respect to each individual providing information” (People v Mabeus, 63 AD3d 1447, 1450 [2009]; see People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416, 421 [1999]; People v Parris, 83 NY2d 342, 347-348 [1994]).

2024Thus, the statements in the search warrant application were sufficient to establish probable cause inasmuch as the People satisfied both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test for evaluating secondhand information ( see People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; People v Holmes , 115 AD3d 1179, 1180-1181 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1038 [2014]).

2024Thus, the statements in the search warrant application were sufficient to establish probable cause inasmuch as the People satisfied both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test for evaluating secondhand information ( see People v Bigelow , 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]; People v Holmes , 115 AD3d 1179, 1180-1181 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1038 [2014]).

2025Although the Supreme Court abandoned the Aguilar-Spinelli test in Illinois v Gates ( 462 US 213 [1983]) in exchange for a totality of the circumstances test, this Court has long continued to apply it in the probable cause context ( see Johnson , 66 NY2d at 400 ). [FN2] Although some members of the Argyris Court reached different conclusions as to whether the anonymous tips at issue were sufficiently reliable to allow the police to initiate the car stops, a majority of the Court concluded that the heightened test applies in the reasonable suspicion context, just as that required for probable ca

2025Although the Supreme Court abandoned the Aguilar-Spinelli test in Illinois v Gates ( 462 US 213 [1983]) in exchange for a totality of the circumstances test, this Court has long continued to apply it in the probable cause context ( see Johnson , 66 NY2d at 400 ). [FN2] Although some members of the Argyris Court reached different conclusions as to whether the anonymous tips at issue were sufficiently reliable to allow the police to initiate the car stops, a majority of the Court concluded that the heightened test applies in the reasonable suspicion context, just as that required for probable ca