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.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. MARTIN GRISWOLD, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his guilty plea of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that County Court did not err in refusing to suppress evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant inasmuch as the search warrant was issued with probable cause. “Probable cause does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but[, rather, it] merely [requires] information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed or that the evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place” (People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423 [1985] ). Further, “[p]robable cause may be supplied, in whole or part, through hearsay information” (id.). The record establishes that the confidential informant had some basis of knowledge, and the confidential informant's reliability was established because his statement to the police was corroborated by independently verified details about the shooting that precipitated the search warrant (see People v. DiFalco, 80 N.Y.2d 693, 696–697 [1993]; People v. Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231, 237 [1980] ).
Contrary to defendant's further contention, the bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: KA 15–00160
Decided: November 17, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)