| People v Pasco |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 09145 [134 AD3d 1257] |
| December 10, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vEvan Pasco, Appellant. |
Brennan & White, LLP, Queensbury (Joseph R. Brennan of counsel), forappellant.
J. Anthony Jordan, District Attorney, Fort Edward (Christian P. Morris of counsel),for respondent.
McCarthy, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County(Hall Jr., J.), rendered April 11, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of thecrime of burglary in the second degree.
In satisfaction of two separate indictments, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary inthe second degree and was sentenced to a five-year prison term, followed by five years ofpostrelease supervision. The two underlying indictments were, in part, respectively basedon evidence obtained upon the execution of two separate search warrants. Defendantappeals and argues that County Court erred in failing to suppress the evidence obtainedpursuant to those warrants.
As to the first warrant for a search of defendant's car and home, defendant contendsthat there was insufficient evidence to establish the reliability of statements provided by aconfidential informant (hereinafter the CI). As is relevant here, the veracity component ofthe Aguilar-Spinelli test can be satisfied by proof "that the specific informationgiven [by the CI] is reliable" (People v DiFalco, 80 NY2d 693, 696-697 [1993];accord People v Wolfe, 103AD3d 1031, 1033 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1021 [2013]). As is alsorelevant, the reliability of information may be established by comparison of thatinformation to facts already known by law enforcement (see People v Wolfe, 103AD3d at 1033-1034; see generally People v Rodriguez, 52 NY2d 483, 490[1981]). Here, the CI informed law enforcement that she had witnessed defendantunloading a 55-inch Vizio television from his car, that she observed laptop computersand a large amount of jewelry that she knew did not belong to defendant in his bedroomand that, in the same room, she also observed empty heroin bags. This information wassufficiently [*2]corroborated by facts within the lawenforcement's knowledge, namely, recent burglary reports. Those reports identified thetheft of a 55-inch Vizio television, multiple laptop computers and large amounts ofjewelry. This proof independently verified details of the CI's statement and established itsreliability for Aguilar-Spinelli purposes (see People v DiFalco, 80 NY2dat 700-701 [1993]; People v Smalls, 271 AD2d 754, 755 [2000], lvdenied 95 NY2d 804 [2000]).
Next, defendant contends that probable cause did not support the second searchwarrant for a different house. In order to establish probable cause, a search warrantapplication must entail sufficient information to support a reasonable belief that evidenceof a crime will be found in a particular place (see People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d417, 423 [1985]; People vVanness, 106 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1044[2013]). The application for the second search warrant included information that policeinvestigation uncovered receipts that confirmed that defendant had made sales to localpawn shops on multiple days that coincided with reports of burglaries. An officer furtheraverred that a person reported that she arrived at her home to find her gate open anddefendant in her backyard, carrying a black drawstring bag. Due to that report, officersstopped defendant, who was found riding a bicycle nearby. When officers askeddefendant if they could search his black drawstring bag, defendant fled to and entered anearby house. He exited that house a short time later without the bag. This informationwas sufficient to support a reasonable conclusion that evidence of a crime would befound within that house (seePeople v Rogers, 94 AD3d 1246, 1248 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 977[2012]; People v Harris, 83AD3d 1220, 1222 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 817 [2011]; People vMcCulloch, 226 AD2d 848, 849 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1070 [1996]).Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.