Lexplug logoLexplug

People v. Griminger

New York Court of Appeals
529 N.Y.S.2d 55, 524 N.E.2d 409, 71 N.Y.2d 635 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the New York State Constitution, a search warrant application based on information from a confidential informant must satisfy the two-prong Aguilar-Spinelli test, which requires a showing of both the informant's reliability and their basis of knowledge.


Facts:

  • U.S. Secret Service agents arrested a suspect for counterfeiting.
  • During interrogation, the suspect signed a statement accusing defendant Griminger of keeping large quantities of marihuana and cocaine in his bedroom and attic.
  • The informant claimed to have seen 150-200 pounds of marihuana in Griminger's home as recently as seven days prior.
  • A federal agent prepared a search warrant affidavit based on this information, describing the informant as a known, confidential source but omitting the fact that the informant was under arrest.
  • The affidavit also stated that a prior consent search of Griminger's garbage can had revealed approximately four pounds of marihuana.
  • Based solely on the affidavit, a Federal Magistrate issued a warrant to search Griminger's home.
  • A subsequent search of the home yielded 10 ounces of marihuana, over $6,000 in cash, and drug-related paraphernalia.

Procedural Posture:

  • Defendant Griminger was charged with criminal possession of marihuana in state court.
  • Griminger filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search warrant was invalid.
  • The County Court (trial court) denied the motion, applying the federal Gates test and finding probable cause.
  • Griminger then pleaded guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
  • Griminger, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
  • The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order, holding that the state's Aguilar-Spinelli test applied, that the informant's reliability was not established, and that the evidence should be suppressed.
  • The People (the prosecution), as appellant, were granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court).

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under the New York State Constitution, should courts apply the Aguilar-Spinelli two-prong test or the Illinois v. Gates totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine the sufficiency of a search warrant affidavit based on a confidential informant's tip?


Opinions:

Majority - Titone, J.

Courts should apply the Aguilar-Spinelli two-prong test. As a matter of New York State constitutional law, the Aguilar-Spinelli test must be used to determine whether there is a sufficient factual predicate for a search warrant based on a hearsay informant. The court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's more flexible 'totality-of-the-circumstances' test from Illinois v. Gates, finding it does not provide a sufficient measure of protection for the privacy rights of New York citizens. The court reasoned that the structured, 'bright line' Aguilar-Spinelli test better serves the aims of predictability and precision in judicial review and ensures that probable cause is based on information from a credible source with firsthand knowledge. By requiring distinct proof of the informant's (1) reliability and (2) basis of knowledge, the test prevents the violation of privacy and liberty rights based on the word of an unreliable hearsay informant. In this case, the informant's reliability was not established, so the warrant was invalid.



Analysis:

This decision establishes New York as a state that provides greater search and seizure protections under its own constitution than what is federally mandated by the Fourth Amendment. By rejecting the Gates test, the New York Court of Appeals created a significant divergence from federal jurisprudence, making it more difficult for law enforcement in New York to obtain search warrants based on informant tips. The ruling solidifies the importance of structured, predictable legal standards in safeguarding individual rights against unreasonable searches and impacts how police must draft warrant applications and how magistrates must review them within the state.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Griminger (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"