From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. DiNapoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 15, 1999
260 A.D.2d 235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 15, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.).


Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through electronic surveillance of his cellular telephone was properly denied. The issuing Justice's finding of probable cause is entitled to great deference ( People v. Griminger, 71 N.Y.2d 635, 640) and is supported by the warrant application and accompanying submissions. The People repeatedly obtained warrants, which defendant has not challenged, authorizing the interception of communications involving several pagers and cellular phones, with the issuing Justices finding probable cause that defendant and his organized crime associates were using the devices in furtherance of designated offenses. The submissions in support of the warrant challenged on appeal included an affidavit of an experienced detective incorporating prior submissions. The totality of information before the issuing Justice permitted a reasonable commonsense interpretation that the conversations and beeper transmissions summarized, including those in code or interlaced with whispers ( see, People v. Manuli, 104 A.D.2d 386, 388), involved illegal business and permitted the further inference that law enforcement officials were likely to garner evidence concerning such activities from the electronic surveillance of defendant's cell phone. We reject defendant's argument that the application was based on general suspicion ( compare, People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423, with People v. Pomponio, 47 N.Y.2d 918). The information obtained from an informant 21 months before the application was not stale under the circumstances ( see, People v. Baris, 116 A.D.2d 174, 184). The informant's information was first hand, was developed over a lifetime of organized crime activity, related to activities not likely to change over the period of time involved, and was corroborated by surveillance under the warrants predating the one in question.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. DiNapoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 15, 1999
260 A.D.2d 235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. DiNapoli

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH DiNAPOLI…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 15, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 235 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
687 N.Y.S.2d 629

Citing Cases

People v. Montero

Defendant also used the terms Cobray, Anaconda, and Springfield, all of which refer to firearm manufacturers…

People v. Montero

Defendant also used the terms Cobray, Anaconda, and Springfield, all of which refer to firearm manufacturers…