Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Laura OLDS, Defendant-Appellant.
We reject the contention of defendant that reversal is required because County Court failed to rule on her pretrial suppression motion before proceeding to trial, as required by CPL 710.40(3). Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant on the grounds that the warrant lacked specificity and the informant was not reliable. The court determined that the warrant was sufficiently specific and directed the prosecutor to turn over the documents relevant to the informant's reliability. Although offered the opportunity to do so, defendant made no further arguments or motions with respect to the informant's reliability after reviewing those documents and thus failed to preserve for our review her contention concerning the failure to comply with CPL 710.40(3) (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Melendez, 141 A.D.2d 860, 861, 530 N.Y.S.2d 202, lv. denied 73 N.Y.2d 788, 536 N.Y.S.2d 748, 533 N.E.2d 678; see also, People v. Orkabi, 160 A.D.2d 644, 645, 559 N.Y.S.2d 261, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 895, 561 N.Y.S.2d 557, 562 N.E.2d 882). In any event, by proceeding with the trial without objection, defendant impliedly waived any objection to the failure to comply with CPL 710.40(3) (see, People v. Ramirez, 229 A.D.2d 452, 645 N.Y.S.2d 81, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 1023, 651 N.Y.S.2d 22, 673 N.E.2d 1249; People v. Correa, 200 A.D.2d 415, 416, 608 N.Y.S.2d 802, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 850, 612 N.Y.S.2d 382, 634 N.E.2d 983; People v. Melendez, supra, at 861, 530 N.Y.S.2d 202).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review her further contention that the search warrant was not issued upon probable cause because the police did not corroborate the information provided by the confidential informant (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Cusumano, 108 A.D.2d 752, 752-753, 484 N.Y.S.2d 909). In any event, because the hearsay portions of the investigator's affidavit satisfied the Aguilar-spinelli test (see, aguilar v. texas, 378 u.s. 108, 84 s.ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637), there was no need for independent observations made by the police (cf., People v. LaDuke, 206 A.D.2d 859, 859-860, 614 N.Y.S.2d 851).
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 16, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)