April 7, 1986
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Samenga, J.).
The hearing court properly refused to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant authorizing a search of the defendant's home. A warrant and the application for a warrant should not be construed in a hypertechnical manner (see, e.g., People v. Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549). The preference accorded to search warrants and the presumption of their validity (Franks v Delaware, 438 U.S. 154) are particularly strong where, as here, the exigencies of the situation demand quick action (see, e.g., People v. Sinatra, 102 A.D.2d 189, 190; People v. Hanlon, supra). In issuing a warrant, a Magistrate may properly rely upon reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the allegations of fact in the application (see, e.g., People v. Sinatra, supra; United States v. Leichtling, 684 F.2d 553, cert denied 459 U.S. 1201). Thus, in reviewing the issuance of a warrant, the courts are to apply these same criteria and mere doubts as to the veracity of the allegations in the papers supporting the application should be resolved in favor of the warrant (see, e.g., People v. Alfinito, 16 N.Y.2d 181).
The defendant, in challenging the credibility and accuracy of the allegations in the search warrant application, failed to meet his burden of showing that the warrant was dependent upon allegations of fact which were perjurious or made with a reckless disregard for the truth (see, e.g., Franks v. Delaware, supra; People v. Alfinito, supra).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.