You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED,...

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFORMANT WAS LEGITIMATELY UNAVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s request for a Darden hearing should not have been denied. The People did not demonstrate the informant who provided information to support a search warrant application was legitimately unavailable for the hearing:

​

Where, as here, there is insufficient evidence to establish probable cause supporting a search warrant without the statements of a confidential informant, the People must make the informant available for questioning in camera … . If, however, the informant cannot be produced despite the diligent efforts of the People, “the People may instead establish the existence of [the] confidential informant[] through extrinsic evidence’ after demonstrating that the informant is legitimately unavailable’ ” … . Here, the court summarily denied defendant’s request upon the People’s bare assertion that the informant was in California and thus unavailable. Although the People subsequently produced an unsworn letter, purportedly from the informant’s drug treatment facility in California, stating that the informant required uninterrupted care, that letter, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that the informant was legitimately unavailable. We conclude that the People failed to establish that an exception to the Darden rule is applicable, and thus the court erred in denying defendant’s request for a Darden hearing … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to conduct an appropriate hearing, at which the People will not be precluded from offering evidence that the informant is currently unavailable. People v Givans, 2017 NY Slip Op 09066, Fourth Dept 12-22-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DARDEN HEARING, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFORMANT WAS LEGITIMATELY UNAVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/DARDEN HEARING (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFORMANT WAS LEGITIMATELY UNAVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT))/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (DARDEN HEARING, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A DARDEN HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE INFORMANT WAS LEGITIMATELY UNAVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
A Shooting Victim’s Negligence and Public Nuisance Actions Against the Manufacturer, Distributor and Resellers of Firearms Is Allowed to Go Forward.
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND SITTING ON THE BACKSEAT OF A POLICE CAR WHEN HE WAS ASKED QUESTIONS, INCLUDING WHETHER HE HAD BEEN DRINKING, BY THE OFFICER WHO MADE THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN CUSTODY WHEN THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED (FOURTH DEPT).
SANDOVAL HEARING HELD IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT, PLACING THE RESULTS OF THE HEARING ON THE RECORD IN DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE DID NOT RECTIFY THE DEFECT.
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING CAR IN VIOLATION OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Inadequate Effort to Provide Requested Documents and Witnesses Required Annulment of the Misbehavior Determination
DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CATEGORICALLY DENIED PURSUANT TO THE PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION; RATHER THE RECORDS MUST BE REVIEWED AND ANY DENIALS OR REDACTIONS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY GAVE THE INSURER THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE A TITLE CLAIM BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE A TITLE CLAIM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANT BREACHED THE POLICY BY NOT PROSECUTING THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS... DEFENDANT PROPERLY ASSESSED 80 POINTS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THIS SEX OFFENDER...