## Facts

- Federal agents arrested a counterfeiting suspect who provided a signed statement alleging Stewart A. Griminger stored large amounts of marijuana and cocaine in his bedroom and adjacent attic and sold drugs.
- An agent submitted a search-warrant affidavit describing a confidential informant (“source A”) who claimed repeated, recent, first-hand observation of large quantities of drugs in Griminger’s bedroom and attic and drug sales by Griminger.
- The affidavit also reported that, after a consent search, about four pounds of marijuana were found in a garbage can at Griminger’s residence.
- The affidavit stated the informant was “a person known to your deponent,” although the affiant did not personally know the informant, and it omitted that the informant was under arrest when providing the information.
- A federal magistrate issued the warrant based solely on the affidavit; the warrant was executed with federal agents and local police, yielding marijuana, cash, and paraphernalia.
- In the ensuing New York prosecution, the trial court denied suppression by applying the federal totality test; the Appellate Division reversed and suppressed under Aguilar-Spinelli.

## Issues

1. Whether New York evaluates informant-hearsay warrant affidavits under Aguilar-Spinelli’s two-prong test or Illinois v. Gates’s totality-of-the-circumstances test as a matter of state constitutional law.
2. Whether state constitutional suppression rules govern admissibility in a New York prosecution when the warrant was issued by a federal magistrate.
3. Whether the affidavit here established probable cause under the governing standard, particularly the informant’s veracity/reliability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that, under the New York Constitution, courts must apply the Aguilar-Spinelli two-prong test to warrant applications resting on informant hearsay.
- The court ruled that state constitutional standards govern admissibility in a New York prosecution even when a federal magistrate issued the warrant.
- Applying Aguilar-Spinelli, the court concluded the affidavit failed to establish the informant’s reliability/veracity adequately; suppression of the search fruits was sustained.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, probable cause based on informant hearsay requires satisfaction of Aguilar-Spinelli: (1) the informant’s basis of knowledge and (2) the informant’s veracity/reliability.
- A state may apply more protective search-and-seizure standards under its own constitution than the federal minimum.
- In a state criminal prosecution, state constitutional rules govern admissibility of evidence, regardless of whether the search warrant was issued by a federal judicial officer.
- Material omissions or misleading characterizations bearing on an informant’s motive and credibility (including custodial status and the affiant’s relationship to the source) can defeat the reliability showing required for an informant-based warrant.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reaffirmed that New York continues to require Aguilar-Spinelli for informant-based warrant affidavits and held the warrant invalid for failure to establish informant reliability, requiring suppression of the evidence in the state prosecution.


People v. Griminger, 524 N.E.2d 409 (N.Y. 1988)