On the other hand, People v Farrow includes a more similar set of facts to the case at bar. In People v Adrion (82 NY2d 628 ), the Court of Appeals held that the CI’s tip was necessary to establish probable cause because the police only had reasonable suspicion for the defendant (not reasonable cause) without the information from the CI. People v Adrion and People v Farrow are two cases that produced very distinct outcomes. The Court of Appeals held that a Darden hearing was not required because the police established probable cause regardless of the CI’s statements. If, however, probable cause is not contingent on the CI’s statements, a Darden?hearing is deemed unnecessary (see Edwards, 95 NY2d at 493 ?Serrano, 93 NY2d at 77). Legal Analysis: The purpose of a Darden hearing is to confirm the CI’s existence and to ensure statements are not fabricated by officials while protecting the CI’s identity. “The detectives’ independent observations, therefore, established probable cause making a Darden hearing unnecessary.” The trial court convicted the defendant of drug possession and sentenced him to eight years in prison and three years post-release supervision. The County Court found a Darden hearing unnecessary because the CI’s statements to the police provided a reasonable cause for the search, but they did not rely on those statements for the arrest. The suspected individual was not charged with the two drug transactions?but was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.Īfter a Mapp hearing, the defendant requested a Darden hearing but was denied by the County Court. Detectives later found that bag to contain cocaine. At the residence, detectives saw the defendant throw a plastic bag out a window. The detectives followed and observed the defendant and CI both visually and by audio feed.ĭetective Wood submitted a search warrant affidavit and a judge signed the warrant. This time, however, the defendant changed the location, and detectives followed both the CI and the defendant. A second controlled drug buy took place where the substance once again tested positive for cocaine. Transaction, the substance tested positive for cocaine. There was no visual observance, only audio. Detective Wood listened to an audio feed of the transaction. Wood arranged a drug buy between the CI and the defendant at the apartment. The police confirmed the suspected individual’s place of residence with the CI by comparing photographs of the apartment building. Holding: The Court of Appeals held that the police did not rely on the CI’s statements to establish probable cause for a search warrant, but rather, police relied on independent sources to establish probable cause, making a Darden hearing unnecessary.įacts: A confiden tial informant (CI) approached detective James Wood with information on an individual who he believed was selling drugs. Issue: Whether police relied on a confidential informant’s statements to establish probable cause for a search warrant, which would require a Darden hearing, or whether police relied on independent sources to establish probable cause, making a Darden hearing unnecessary.
0 kommentar(er)
