From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Peterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 16, 1990
159 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

March 16, 1990

Appeal from the Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Lowery, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We have reviewed both the sworn warrant application of the police officer and the affidavit of the informant sworn to before the issuing Magistrate and find that they provided information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that evidence of illegal activity would be present at the specific time and place of the search (see, People v Edwards, 69 N.Y.2d 814, 816). The informant's sworn statement was properly considered by the suppression court and need not have been disclosed to defendant (see, People v Diaz, 147 A.D.2d 912, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1014; People v Delgado, 134 A.D.2d 951, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 895); an independent review of the facts presented is all that is required (see, People v Fino, 14 N.Y.2d 160, 163).


Summaries of

People v. Peterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 16, 1990
159 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Peterson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KAREN PETERSON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 16, 1990

Citations

159 A.D.2d 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
552 N.Y.S.2d 757

Citing Cases

People v. Whitfield

We conclude that the procedures used to determine the validity of the search warrant were sufficient; the…

People v. Knighton

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We have reviewed both the sworn warrant application of the police…