PEOPLE v. SUAREZ (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (William Miller, J.), rendered July 16, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review the denial (Michael Kitsis, J.), after a Darden hearing (People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177, 356 N.Y.S.2d 582, 313 N.E.2d 49), of the defendant's motion to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

“To establish probable cause, a search warrant application must provide sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime may be found in a certain place” (People v. Coleman, 176 A.D.3d 851, 851, 107 N.Y.S.3d 877 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  “There is a strong judicial preference for search warrants, and courts should not analyze applications in a grudging or hypertechnical manner when determining whether they meet constitutional standards” (People v. Williams, 249 A.D.2d 343, 344, 670 N.Y.S.2d 893 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]).  Where probable cause is established through hearsay information provided by a confidential informant, the warrant application must demonstrate:  “(i) the veracity or reliability of the source of the information, and (ii) the basis of the informant's knowledge” (People v. Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635, 639, 529 N.Y.S.2d 55, 524 N.E.2d 409;  see People v. Chisholm, 21 N.Y.3d 990, 992, 972 N.Y.S.2d 202, 995 N.E.2d 164).  There is “no one acid test of reliability” (People v. Rodriguez, 52 N.Y.2d 483, 489, 438 N.Y.S.2d 754, 420 N.E.2d 946).  A confidential informant will be considered reliable “where details of his [or her] story have been confirmed by police observation” (id.).

The Darden rule is necessary to insure “that the confidential informant both exists and gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause, while protecting the informant's identity” (People v. Edwards, 95 N.Y.2d 486, 494, 719 N.Y.S.2d 202, 741 N.E.2d 876;  see People v. Adrion, 82 N.Y.2d 628, 635, 606 N.Y.S.2d 893, 627 N.E.2d 973;  People v. Darden, 34 N.Y.2d 177, 356 N.Y.S.2d 582, 313 N.E.2d 49).  “The credibility determinations of a hearing court following a Darden hearing are accorded deference on appeal, and will not be disturbed unless they are not supported by the record” (People v. Nettles, 186 A.D.3d 861, 863, 128 N.Y.S.3d 610;  see People v. Huginnie, 225 A.D.3d 894, 895, 207 N.Y.S.3d 679).

Here, the credibility determination of the Supreme Court is supported by the record.  The description of the events in the warrant application and the consistency of the witness's testimony at the Darden hearing established the identity of the confidential informant and that the informant gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause (see People v. Huginnie, 225 A.D.3d at 895, 207 N.Y.S.3d 679).

CHAMBERS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LOVE and HOM, JJ., concur.