You are here: / Evidence
,

THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RELIABILITY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, MATTER SENT BACK FOR REVIEW OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT’S STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE ISSUING MAGISTRATE (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, over a dissent, determined the motion court should have looked at the transcript of the confidential informant’s statements before the magistrate before ruling on whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The application and affidavit did not demonstrate the reliability of the informant:

… Supreme Court erred by failing to examine the transcript of the confidential informant’s testimony before the magistrate to determine whether the search warrant was issued upon probable cause and that the formal requirements of CPL 690.40 (1) had been substantially complied with … . …

The search warrant and supporting affidavit do not by themselves establish probable cause in this case … . A warrant application containing information provided by a confidential informant must demonstrate “the veracity or reliability of the source of the information” … . There are no “factual averments” in the police officer’s affidavit that could have afforded the magistrate a basis for determining the reliability of the confidential informant … . The affidavit does not state that the informant had a proven “track record” of supplying reliable information in the past … , and it is not evident that the informant was under oath when information was given to the officer … .

Nor may the reliability of the confidential informant be inferred solely from the statement, set forth in the affidavit, that the informant bought cocaine from defendant. While admissions against penal interest may be sufficient to support a finding of probable cause … , “[s]uch admissions are not guarantees of truthfulness and they should be accepted only after careful consideration of all the relevant circumstances of the case indicates that there exists a basis for finding reliability” … . People v Chisholm, 2013 NY Slip Op 04841 [21 NY3d 990], CtApp 6-27-13

SUPPRESSION

, ,

DOCTOR INTENTIONALLY LEFT A GUIDE WIRE USED DURING SURGERY INSIDE PLAINTIFF’S BODY WHEN HE WAS UNABLE TO FIND IT, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that the medical malpractice action was properly dismissed after plaintiff’s proof was put in. Defendant doctor intentionally left a guide wire (used during a surgical procedure) inside plaintiff’s body after he was unable to locate it. The guide wire was later removed with the aid of a special x-ray machine. The “foreign object” was not left plaintiff’s body unintentionally, which is a requirement of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. And plaintiff was unable to show that it was the defendant doctor, and not someone else involved in the surgery, who exercised control over the guide wire:

Plaintiff Marguerite James commenced this medical malpractice action against defendants Dr. David Wormuth and his practice … after he failed to remove a localization guide wire during a biopsy of an area on plaintiff’s lung. On this appeal from the Appellate Division order affirming the dismissal of her amended complaint, we affirm.

In October 2004, a guide wire inserted into the plaintiff to assist with a biopsy of an area in her lung dislodged. Defendant Dr. Wormuth proceeded with the biopsy, but was unable to locate the dislodged wire. After an unsuccessful 20-minute manual search for the wire, defendant determined that it was better for the plaintiff to leave the wire and end the surgical procedure, rather than to extend the amount of time she was in surgery for him to continue searching for the wire. Defendant informed plaintiff after the surgery that he could not find the wire, and that he had determined that it was better to leave it rather than continue the search procedure.

Plaintiff subsequently returned to defendant complaining of pain she attributed to the lodged wire, and which she said was so significant that it disrupted her ability to work. Approximately two months after the first procedure, defendant performed a second operation. In that procedure, he successfully … located and removed the wire with the use of a special X-ray machine known as a C-arm. * * *

To the extent counsel argued that res ipsa loquitur applies because the wire could only have dislodged due to the doctor’s negligence, plaintiff failed to establish the elements of res ipsa, specifically that Dr. Wormuth had exclusive control … . Dr. Wormuth testified that there were other medical personnel involved in the process of inserting the wire and transporting the plaintiff prior to the doctor’s discovery that the wire had dislodged. Plaintiff did not produce any evidence to the contrary. Instead, plaintiff’s counsel appears to have … believed that the control element was satisfied because the doctor had control over the operation. Whether the doctor was in control of the operation does not address the question of whether he was in exclusive control of the instrumentality, because several other individuals participated to an extent in the medical procedure. Given that plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that the doctor had exclusive control of the wire, or sufficient proof that “eliminate[s] within reason all explanations for the injury other than the defendant’s negligence,” the control element clearly has not been satisfied … . James v Wormuth, 2013 NY Slip Op 04839 [21 NY3d 540] CtApp 6-27-13

 

, , ,

STATE’S USE OF A GPS DEVICE TO TRACK STATE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT, BUT THE SEARCH WAS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE ALL OF THE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS, EVEN WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WAS ON VACATION, WERE TRACKED, THE GPS EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a three-judge concurrence, determined the evidence obtained about a state employee’s movements by placing a GPS device on the employee’s car should have been suppressed in the Labor Department’s hearing (after which the employee was terminated). The Court of Appeals found that the use of the GPS device did not require a warrant, but the search in this case was unreasonable in scope:

The State of New York, suspecting that one of its employees was submitting false time reports, attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to the employee’s car. Under People v Weaver (12 NY3d 433 [2009]) and United States v Jones (565 US —, 132 S Ct 945 [2012]), the State’s action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions. We hold that the search did not require a warrant, but that on the facts of this case it was unreasonable. * * *

While the search did not require a warrant, it did not comply with either the State or Federal Constitution unless it was a reasonable search. We conclude that the State has failed to demonstrate that this search was reasonable. * * *

Where an employer conducts a GPS search without making a reasonable effort to avoid tracking an employee outside of business hours, the search as a whole must be considered unreasonable. That conclusion concededly requires suppression of the GPS evidence here; the State has disclaimed any reliance on the balancing test that we use when deciding whether to invoke the suppression remedy in administrative proceedings .. . . Matter of Cunningham v New York State Dept. of Labor,
2013 NY Slip Op 04838 [21 NY3d 515], CtApp 6-27-13

 

,

Denial of Request to Take Child’s Testimony Outside Parents’ Presence Was Abuse of Discretion

The Third Department noted that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the request for a Lincoln hearing in a custody proceeding (allowing a child to testify outside the parties’ presence):

Although not an issue directly raised on appeal, the attorney for the child and the father both requested that Family Court hold a Lincoln hearing … rather than require the child to testify in open court.  Unfortunately, this request was denied and, after the mother refused to consent to the child testifying outside of the parties’ presence, the child had to testify under oath in front of both parents. While we recognize that Family Court has the discretion to decide whether a Lincoln hearing is appropriate…, it was clearly an abuse of discretion for the court to put the child in this awkward position… . We again emphasize that “‘a child . . . should not be placed in the position of having [his or her] relationship with either parent further jeopardized by having to publicly relate [his or her] difficulties with them'” when explaining the reasons for his or her preference…. Given the circumstances of this case and the fact that – at her age [14]– her preference would  be  entitled to great weight, the record indicates that a Lincoln hearing would have limited the risk of harm and “would have been far more informative and worthwhile than . . . an examination of the child under oath in open court”… . Matter of Casarotti v Casarotti, 515270, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

 

,

Events Before Last Custody Order Could Be Considered re: “Best Interests of Child” Even Though Only Post-Custody-Order Events Can Be Considered re: “Change of Circumstances”

In upholding Family Court’s custody ruling, the Third Department noted that events which occurred before the last custody order could be considered with respect to the best interests of the child:”

Family Court did not err in considering evidence of events that occurred before the entry of the prior custody order. Although  the inquiry as to whether  a substantial change  in circumstances has occurred should be limited to occurrences since the date of the prior custody order…, a best interests inquiry is broader and may include other facts that give the court a view of the totality of the circumstances and family dynamics, including proof that relates to either party’s fitness as a parent….  As less weight  is afforded to a stipulated order, admission of evidence concerning previous behavior or events is especially proper where no prior plenary hearing has been held and the prior order was issued on consent…. Here, Family Court did not abuse  its broad  discretion in determining the scope of the proof….  Matter of  Smith…, 513811, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

, ,

County Court’s Suppression of Statements and Fruits of Search Reversed

The Third Department reversed County Court’s suppression of defendant’s statements and County Court’s finding that defendant had not voluntarily consented to the search of his car (both based on the absence of Miranda warnings).   The Third Department determined a reasonable person innocent of a crime would still have felt he was free to leave (i.e., that he was not in custody) after his failure of field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test.  The Third Department further noted that the failure to provide Miranda warnings would not necessarily render a consent to search involuntary:

The court ….overlooked the settled proposition that “[a] temporary roadside detention pursuant to a routine traffic stop is not custodial within the meaning of Miranda” … .The facts here reveal a reasonable initial interrogation attendant to a roadside detention that was merely investigatory…. The Troopers’ inquiries, the mixed results of the field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test would not have caused a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing to believe that he or she was in custody….   In our view, the Troopers’ observations of defendant’s condition justified the further  detention  for the  limited  purpose  of  investigating whether  he  was  operating his motor  vehicle in an  impaired condition… .  People v Brown, 105134, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

,

Defendant’s Being in the “General Area” Where Was Weapon Was Found and Defendant’s DNA on the Weapon Was Not Enough to Support Possession Conviction

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a weapon as against the weight of the evidence.  The evidence demonstrated that the defendant was in the general area where the gun was found and the defendant could not be excluded from the mixed DNA found on the gun.  The court wrote:

No one saw defendant with the gun, he was just near where it was found and his DNA was on it. The officer testified that defendant was 20 to 30 feet past the house, whereas Fox [defendant’s companion] was off his bicycle and appeared to be doing something near the house. The officer further testified that he found the gun in front of that house, and vaguely stated that defendant  was  in “the general area” where the gun was found. This does not prove that defendant possessed the gun on Sheridan Avenue at that time. Based  on  the  testimony  of the  officer and  the  forensic scientist, it is possible that Fox – who  the officer had seen directly in front of the house – could have had the gun and left it on the ground at that time, and defendant’s DNA could have been there from handling  it previously (which  may  prove  that defendant handled the  gun at some  point, but not  at the date and time alleged in the  indictment) or through  secondary  transfer (i.e., if Fox  touched defendant  and  then  the  gun,  transferring some  of defendant’s DNA onto the gun). Because this scenario is equally likely to have occurred, we cannot say that the weight of the evidence supports the verdict finding defendant guilty  ….  People v Graham, 104177, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

,

No Standing to Contest Search of Guest Room

The Court of Appeals determined there was support in the record for the trial court’s finding that defendant did not have standing to contest the search of a room in his grandmother’s house where a weapon was found:

The judge credited the grandmother’s testimony that the bedroom where the gun was found was an extra or guest bedroom; and that defendant had a separate room and did not stay in the guest bedroom. Given these facts, Supreme Court held that defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in “a room that wasn’t his, that was used by several other people.”  People v Leach, No 130, CtApp 6-25-13

SUPPRESSION

 

, , , ,

Defendant May Not Be Cross-Examined About Criminal Conviction on Direct Appeal

In reversing defendant’s assault conviction, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, determined a defendant with a conviction pending appeal may not be cross-examined about the underlying facts of that conviction until direct appeal has been exhausted.  Judge Lippman wrote:

At trial, the defense was justification and defendant planned to testify, but the People received permission, after a Sandoval hearing, to cross-examine him about his recent rape conviction, still pending on direct appeal, as well as the underlying facts, and the sentence he received. After the People rested, defense counsel asked the court to reconsider the Sandoval ruling, objecting that an appeal of the rape conviction was pending and, therefore, cross-examination about the conviction and its underlying facts would violate defendant’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, but the court adhered to its ruling. Defendant did not testify and was convicted of third-degree assault. Subsequently, his conviction for rape was reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel, his prior attorney having failed to impeach the complainant with exculpatory hospital records…. Defendant was retried and acquitted.  * * *

…[I]n ruling that the prosecution could cross-examine defendant about the underlying facts of his rape conviction, presumably the court was not implying that defendant could not assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to those questions. However, “taking the Fifth,” is highly prejudicial as to both the instant case and the conviction pending appeal. To a jury, it appears as though defendant is admitting the truth of the leading questions posed by the prosecutor; “[i]t exerts an undeniable chilling effect upon a real ‘choice’ whether to testify in one’s own behalf” …. More problematic, defendant must invoke the Fifth Amendment as to both exculpatory and inculpatory questions to protect himself; otherwise he might waive the privilege… .  People v Cantave, No 129, CtApp 6-25-13

 

,

Illegal Arrest Did Not Taint Identification Procedure – Attentuation Doctrine Applied

Over a dissent, the Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, determined that the defendant’s identification in a line-up, after an admittedly illegal arrest, was not tainted by the arrest under the doctrine of “attenuation.”  The operative legal principles were described as follows:

The sergeant’s initial arrest of defendant was without probable cause and therefore illegal. But evidence discovered subsequent to an illegal arrest is not indiscriminately subject to the exclusionary rule…. Instead, the People “must have ‘somehow exploited or benefitted from [the] illegal conduct’ such that ‘there is a connection between the violation of a constitutional right and the derivative evidence’ obtained by the police”….

Defendant claims that the lineup identification must be suppressed because it was the product of an illegal arrest. In order to counter that challenge, the People were required to demonstrate that the identification was “acquired by means sufficiently distinguishable from the arrest to be purged of the illegality” …, i.e., that the taint of the illegal arrest was “attenuated” …. In order to determine whether attenuation exists, the court must “consider the temporal proximity of the arrest and [the evidence at issue], the presence of intervening circumstances and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct”…. *  *  *

By the time the sergeant effected the illegal arrest, the detective already had in his possession sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for defendant’s arrest. People v Jones, No 125, CtApp 6-25-13

 

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy