This Court previously reserved decision of several matters raised by the defendant's omnibus motion dated November 2, 2017. This Court now denies the motion to controvert the search warrant for the defendant's residence at 557 West 150th Street, Apartment 44, New York, New York; grants the motion to controvert the search warrant issued for three cellular telephones seized from the residence during the arrest; and denies the motion to suppress evidence of statements that defendant allegedly made to police as the fruit of an unlawful detention or arrest.

Motion to Controvert Search Warrant for the Defendant's Home

The motion to controvert the search warrant for the premises is denied. The defense argues that the affidavit in support of the warrant did not establish the reliability of the [*2]confidential informant as required by the Aguilar-Spinelli test (see People v Griminger, 71 NY2d 635, 638-639 [1988]). The prosecutor, however, has supplied this court with the minutes of the warrant application, and the minutes show that the informant testified under oath in front of the issuing judge, who found the informant reliable. The Aguilar-Spinelli test does not apply to a case in which the informant testified under oath in support of the warrant application (see People v Taylor, 73 NY2d 683, 688 [1989]). Furthermore, because the informant testified in support of the application, no Darden hearing is required (see People v Edwards, 95 NY2d 486, 493 [2000]; People v Jones, 72 AD3d 452, 453 [1st Dept 2010]).

The search warrant was supported by information that was not stale. The information redacted from the supporting affidavit and the testimony of the confidential information demonstrated ongoing narcotics activity at the residence sufficient to establish that the evidence described in the warrant would be found at the residence when the warrant was executed.

Contrary to defendant's other argument, the search warrant described the property to be seized with particularity and was not overbroad. The "wide range of drug materials" sought by the warrant (Defense Motion to Controvert dated August 28, 2017, at 10) was limited to specified items used to package, sell, and ingest "crack/cocaine," to any writings or images that would evidence such criminal activity, and to any currency and other evidence of proceeds from the manufacture and sale of "crack/cocaine." The references to "crack/cocaine" were sufficient to identify the alleged criminal offense (Defense Motion to Controvert Addendum dated October 30, 2017, at ¶¶ 7-8). Furthermore, based upon the information contained in the warrant application, the warrant reasonably authorized the seizure of all cellphones and other electronic devices capable of storing digital information. This court, therefore, disagrees with the argument that the search warrant contained wording "far too broad and nondescript" and that the "quantity and volume" of material sought was "unreasonable" (Defense Motion to Controvert dated August 28, 2017, at 10).

Motion to Controvert the Search Warrant for the Cellphones