Opinion
June 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Herbert Altman, J., James A. Yates, J.
Contrary to defendants' contentions, the information contained in the affidavit for a search warrant, which was based solely upon the personal observations of police officers made on 11 separate occasions, was plainly reliable (see, United States v Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 110-111), and provided the issuing Magistrate with more than enough details of defendants' selling operation "`to support a reasonable belief that * * * evidence of a crime [might] be found'" at the subject apartment and that "it was more probable than not that criminal activity was taking place" there (People v. Pinchback, 187 A.D.2d 540, 541, affd 82 N.Y.2d 857, quoting People v. Bigelow, 66 N.Y.2d 417, 423).
Nor was the information stale. "Information may be acted upon as long as the practicalities dictate that a state of facts existing in the past, which is sufficient to give rise to probable cause, continues to exist at the time the application for a search warrant is made." (People v. Clarke, 173 A.D.2d 550.) Here, the observations, made over a five-month period, the last one only four days before the application, were sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an ongoing drug enterprise existed and that evidence of illegal drug activity would be present at the time and the place of the search (see, People v Wilkerson, 167 A.D.2d 662, 663, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 958; United States v. Feola, 651 F. Supp. 1068, 1090-1091, affd 875 F.2d 857).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.