PEOPLE v. MONTAGUE (2000)

 Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant on the ground that the warrant was not supported by probable cause.   We disagree.   In order to establish probable cause, a warrant application “must provide the Magistrate with information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place” (People v. McCulloch, 226 A.D.2d 848, 849, 640 N.Y.S.2d 914, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1070, 651 N.Y.S.2d 414, 674 N.E.2d 344).   Here, the warrant application contained the unsworn statement of defendant's landlord that he had entered defendant's mobile home and observed marihuana apparatus and marihuana plants.   Because defendant's landlord is an identified citizen informant, the reliability of the statement is presumed (see, People v. Hetrick, 80 N.Y.2d 344, 349, 590 N.Y.S.2d 183, 604 N.E.2d 732;  People v. Cantre, 95 A.D.2d 522, 526, 467 N.Y.S.2d 263, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 790, 493 N.Y.S.2d 127, 482 N.E.2d 923 on opn. below ), and the basis of knowledge of the landlord was established by his personal observations of the marihuana apparatus and marihuana plants in defendant's mobile home.   That information provided probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant (see generally, People v. Hetrick, supra, at 348-350, 590 N.Y.S.2d 183, 604 N.E.2d 732;  People v. Markiewicz, 246 A.D.2d 914, 914-915, 667 N.Y.S.2d 836, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 974, 672 N.Y.S.2d 854, 695 N.E.2d 723).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: