People v. Johnson
488 N.E.2d 439, 497 N.Y.S.2d 618, 66 NY2d 398 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the New York State Constitution, hearsay information from an informant can only establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest if it satisfies both the basis-of-knowledge and reliability prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test.
Facts:
- On March 3, 1982, Raymundo Alcantara was shot and killed during an attempted robbery of his grocery store.
- Police questioned Joseph Di Prospro on an unrelated charge, and he identified Bolivar Abreu as the shooter.
- Police then questioned Bolivar Abreu, who initially denied any knowledge of the homicide.
- Abreu later changed his story, implicating Di Prospro and the defendant by describing a conversation he claimed to have witnessed between them discussing the crime.
- In his statement, Abreu also mentioned that he and others had traded a rifle for a .38 caliber revolver two months prior to the homicide.
- Based solely on Abreu's statement, and without any other corroborating evidence or identification of the defendant, police arrested the defendant.
- Following the arrest, the defendant was read his Miranda rights and subsequently made two inculpatory statements, confessing to his involvement in the crime.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, of felony murder and related crimes.
- Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress his post-arrest statements, which the trial court denied after finding the arrest was supported by probable cause.
- The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction without opinion.
- The defendant was then granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless arrest based solely on hearsay information from an informant, whose reliability is not established under the Aguilar-Spinelli test, violate the New York State Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
Yes. A warrantless arrest based on hearsay from an informant violates the New York State Constitution unless both prongs of the Aguilar-Spinelli test are met. The court declined to adopt the more flexible 'totality of the circumstances' test from Illinois v. Gates for warrantless arrests under state constitutional law, holding that the Aguilar-Spinelli framework provides a more predictable and precise standard that better protects individual rights. Although the informant, Abreu, had a basis of knowledge because he claimed to have personally witnessed the defendant's conversation, his reliability was not established. His statement did not contain a true admission against penal interest, as his involvement in trading a gun two months prior was too remote and did not amount to criminal facilitation for the subsequent murder. Furthermore, police corroboration of a minor detail—that another suspect had been previously questioned and released—was insufficient to verify the reliability of Abreu's entire statement. Because the arrest was made without probable cause and was therefore unlawful, the defendant's subsequent confessions, made shortly after the arrest with no intervening circumstances, were fruit of the illegal police conduct and must be suppressed.
Concurring - Titone, J.
Yes. While the arrest was unlawful and the evidence should be suppressed, the exclusionary rule in New York is not a constitutional mandate but rather a judicially created common-law rule of evidence. This opinion agrees with the majority's conclusion to reverse the conviction but disagrees with its reasoning that the exclusionary rule is required by the New York State Constitution. Citing the history of the 1938 Constitutional Convention and prior case law like People v. Defore, the concurrence argues that New York has historically rejected a constitutional exclusionary rule, leaving its adoption to the legislature. Suppression is appropriate in this case not as a constitutional command, but as a judge-made rule to deter police from making 'gut hunch' arrests based on unverified information from an unreliable informant. This approach allows the legislature the freedom to abrogate the rule if it so chooses.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant divergence between New York and federal constitutional law regarding probable cause for warrantless arrests. By explicitly rejecting the Supreme Court's 'totality of the circumstances' test from Illinois v. Gates, the New York Court of Appeals established that Article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution affords greater protection to individuals than the Fourth Amendment. The ruling solidifies the stricter, two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test as the governing standard in New York, creating a 'bright line' rule for law enforcement. This precedent requires police and lower courts in New York to conduct a more structured and rigorous analysis of informant tips, ensuring both basis of knowledge and reliability are independently satisfied before a warrantless arrest can be deemed lawful.
