Opinion
KA 03-00397.
November 21, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of Jefferson County Court (Martusewicz, J.), entered April 30, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.
Robert P. Moran, Jr., Rome, for Defendant-Appellant.
Cindy F. Intschert, District Attorney, Watertown (Dylan T. Tester of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.
Before: Present: Pine, J.P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Gorski, and Lawton, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly determined that there was probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrants leading to the arrest of defendant and his subsequent conviction, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18). "The sworn statement[s] of a citizen informant attesting to facts directly and personally observed by [her are] sufficient to support the issuance of [the] search warrant[s]" ( People v Wilson, 284 A.D.2d 958, 958, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 943; see also People v Martinez, 298 A.D.2d 897, 898, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 769, cert denied ___ US ___, 123 S Ct 1752, reh denied ___ US ___, 123 S Ct 2266). In this case, the attesting witness was familiar with marihuana and personally observed what she believed to be marihuana in the locations to be searched. Thus, her sworn statements established probable cause to believe that a search of those locations "would result in evidence of drug activity" ( People v McLaughlin, 269 A.D.2d 858, 858, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 800; see Martinez, 298 A.D.2d at 898). Any misreading of the witness's statements by the court did not invalidate the warrants because the court's misreading did not concern the witness's observations of marihuana. Also contrary to defendant's contention, the descriptions of the locations to be searched contained in the warrants and the supporting affidavits were "sufficiently definite to enable the searcher to identify" those locations ( People v Nieves, 36 N.Y.2d 396, 401), and "there is no reasonable probability that the wrong [locations] would be searched" ( People v Seybold, 216 A.D.2d 935, 936).