Opinion
Ind. No. 72102/2022
03-06-2023
The People of the State of New York, v. Jamal McIver, Defendant.
For the Defendant: Paul Montgomery, Esq. For the People: Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Queens County (Adarna Defreitas, Esq., Of Counsel)
Unpublished Opinion
For the Defendant: Paul Montgomery, Esq.
For the People: Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Queens County (Adarna Defreitas, Esq., Of Counsel)
Cassandra M. Mullen, J.
Defendant Jamal McIver moves, in a motion dated January 23, 2023, for an order controverting the search warrant, which authorized a search of a bedroom at 535 Beach 66th Street, Apartment 1, Queens County, State of New York. He further moves for an order suppressing all evidence obtained as a result of unlawful searches and seizures, or in the alternative for a Mapp hearing. In their response motion dated February 14, 2023, the People oppose the defendant's motion in its entirety.
The Court decides the motion as follows:
Both the federal and state constitutions provide that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV; NY Const. art I, § 12. Probable cause for the issuance of the warrant may be based upon hearsay as long as the application for the warrant demonstrates both the reliability of the informant and the basis of the informant's knowledge. People v. Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635, 639 (1988).
To satisfy the particularity requirement, "the warrant's directive must be 'specific enough to leave no discretion to the executing officer.'" People v. Brown, 96 N.Y.2d 80, 84 (2001) (citing People v. Darling, 95 N.Y.2d 530, 537 [2000]). "This does not mean that hypertechnical accuracy and completeness of description must be attained but rather, from the standpoint of common sense, that the descriptions in the warrant and supporting affidavits be sufficiently definite" to allow the police to identify the people, places, or things to be searched. People v. Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d 396, 401 (1975).
In this case, the search warrant authorized the police to search "535 Beach 66th Street, Apt 1, Queens County, NY, specifically the bedroom of Jamal Mciver, which is the first bedroom to the left, at the end of the entrance hallway." People's Response to Defendant's Motion to Controvert the Search Warrant and Suppress Physical Evidence (hereinafter, "People's Response"), Exhibit C. The search warrant authorized the search of the location, on the basis that there was reasonable cause to believe that the following property may be found:
"a white/off white t-shirt of Jamal Mciver (Male/Black/ 29 years old, DOB: [XX/XX/1992], of 525 Beach 66th Street, Queens County, NY 11692), containing any biological or serological substance, including blood, saliva, human tissue, bodily fluid, and any other substance that may contain human DNA; any article or material containing a stain of such biological or serological substances; any hairs or fibers or any materials containing hairs or fibers."
The Court finds that the warrant is sufficiently narrow and satisfies the particularity requirement of the state and federal constitutions as it authorizes a search of the specific location within the designated premises based on the belief that the target property was located there. The search warrant sufficiently detailed the location to be searched and the property to be seized, such that the warrant left no discretion to the police officers executing the search.
Probable cause for a search warrant may be based not only on the police officer's personal knowledge, but on information provided to the officer from an informant. People v. Mclaurin, 160 A.D.3d 1438 (4th Dept. 2018). Thus, hearsay evidence is admissible, but it must be evaluated under the two-pronged Aguillar-Spinelli test, which states that a warrant may issue if the judge finds sufficient grounds to conclude both that: (1) the informant was reliable, and (2) that his information was credible. People v. Medina, 90 N.Y.2d 941 (1997). Whatever the source of the information, the affidavit of the police officer may not be conclusory; namely, it must identify witnesses, records, or other information with sufficient specificity, as well as sufficient facts to establish probable cause. People v. Maldonado, 86 N.Y.2d 631 (1995); People v. Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398 (1985); People v. Russell, 16 A.D.3d 776 (3rd Dept. 2005).
In addition to being sufficiently narrow and particular, this Court finds that the search warrant affidavit properly outlined probable cause to enter into and search the location for the target property. Under the two-pronged Aguillar-Spenilli test, the Court finds the informant to be reliable and the information credible. The search warrant application states the basis for the complainant's knowledge and belief of the white t-shirt being in the defendant's bedroom. The defendant argues that the complainant is unreliable because he or she has a self-interest in the case. To the contrary, the Second Department has held that when the source of information is the victim of a crime, the requirement of reliability is easily satisfied. People v. Badly, 147 A.D.2d 578 (2nd Dept. 1989); People v. Lentini, 120 A.D.2d 548 (2nd Dept. 1986).
The Court disagrees with the defendant's argument that that because of various typographical errors that the complainant and the information should not be trusted. In determining whether an application for a search warrant meets the two-pronged Aguillar-Spinelli test, the Court of Appeals has held that judges should apply a "commonsense approach." Search warrant applications "should not be read in a hypertechnical manner as if they were entries in an essay contest. On the contrary, they must be considered in the clear light of everyday experiences and accorded all reasonable inferences." People v. Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549 (1975); see also, People v. Caldero, 195 A.D.3d 1450 (4th Dept. 2021).
Accordingly, defendant's motion to controvert the search warrant is denied.
Because the property was obtained pursuant to a lawful search warrant, the defendant's motion for a Mapp hearing is also denied.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to distribute copies of this decision and order to the attorney for the defendant and to the District Attorney.