PEOPLE v. BRITO (2009)

On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1], [2] ) and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03), defendant contends that his arrest was not based upon probable cause inasmuch as the People failed to satisfy the Aguilar-Spinelli test with respect to the citizen informant who provided the relevant information to the police.   We reject that contention.  “[T]he information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of the commission of a specific crime is sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest” (People v. Williams, 301 A.D.2d 543, 753 N.Y.S.2d 377, lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 589, 764 N.Y.S.2d 400, 796 N.E.2d 492;  see People v. Bingham, 263 A.D.2d 611, 612, 692 N.Y.S.2d 823, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 1014, 697 N.Y.S.2d 573, 719 N.E.2d 934).   The reliability and veracity of an identified citizen is presumed, particularly in light of “the criminal sanctions attendant upon falsely reporting ․ information to the authorities” (People v. Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, 340, 553 N.Y.S.2d 72, 552 N.E.2d 608, cert. denied 498 U.S. 833, 111 S.Ct. 99, 112 L.Ed.2d 70).   Furthermore, the statement by the identified citizen informant that was against the informant's “own penal interest constituted reliable information for the purposes of supplying probable cause” (People v. Riggins, 161 A.D.2d 813, 814, 556 N.Y.S.2d 141, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 851, 560 N.Y.S.2d 991, 561 N.E.2d 891, 76 N.Y.2d 863, 560 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 561 N.E.2d 903).   We accord great deference to the determination of County Court crediting the testimony of the police officer concerning the information provided by the citizen informant (see generally People v. Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759, 761, 395 N.Y.S.2d 635, 363 N.E.2d 1380).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: