Opinion
November 20, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends, among other things, that the reliability of the confidential informant, upon whose information the search warrant was granted, was not sufficiently demonstrated in the warrant application. He argues, therefore, that the reliability prong of the Aguilar-Spinelli test (see, Aguilar v Texas, 378 U.S. 108; Spinelli v United States, 393 U.S. 410) was not satisfied and his motion to suppress the evidence acquired pursuant to that search warrant should have been granted. There are several factors that can be considered by courts in determining the reliability of an informant. In most cases, a combination of factors, considered together, lead the court to the conclusion that an informant is or is not worthy of belief (see, People v Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483). In the instant case the informant who provided the information used to obtain the search warrant for the defendant's premises had been proven reliable. Although it was conceded that the information supplied by the informant in a previous case was already known to the detective who provided the affidavit upon which the warrant was based, the detective concluded that the informant was reliable when the information given was later confirmed. Additionally, the hearing court held a Darden hearing (see, People v Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177), in camera, with the confidential informant. The court found that the informant was the same person who had previously informed the police about the operation of a house where cocaine was sold in Poughkeepsie. Furthermore, as the hearing court found, "the information given by the informant accurately corroborated the manner in which the * * * house was operated." Therefore, "the information given by the informant was verified". The defendant's contention that one previous tip is insufficient to establish a track record is without merit. Applying a quantitative rather than a qualitative analysis of an informant's reliability places a burden on the police in using confidential informants not contemplated by the standard articulated by the Court of Appeals of "some minimum, reasonable showing that the informant was reliable" (People v Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635, 639).
The defendant further contends that the warrant should have been voided and evidence seized pursuant thereto should have been suppressed. He alleges that the detective lied as to a material fact within his application so as to create probable cause. Where the credibility and accuracy of the allegations made by an affiant in a search warrant affidavit are challenged, the defendant must establish at a hearing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the allegations were perjurious or made with a reckless disregard for the truth (see, Franks v Delaware, 438 U.S. 154; People v Tambe, 71 N.Y.2d 492, 504; People v Williams, 119 A.D.2d 606). We find the defendant has not sustained his burden.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Brown, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.