Published on:

People v. Thomas

People v. Thomas

Court Discusses Probable Cause of a Warrantless Search

The defendant was arrested after an informant told the police that the defendant and a female was selling heroin from the room of a motel. The motel was under surveillance and a known heroin addict was seen on the premises. The police officers then entered the motel and performed a warrantless search in the motel room where the defendant and the female performed their business. The officers found the defendant disposing a cigarette pack which contained small packets of white power by flushing it. The police also found drug paraphernalia in the form of hypodermic needles and syringes in the motel room. The defendant was indicted and convicted of one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. The defendant appealed the conviction on the ground the police lacked probable cause.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the trial court as probable cause for the search was found based on the circumstances. The Aguilar-Spinelli test had to be satisfied to establish probable cause. This test was used to establish the validity of the warrantless search performed by the police when the heroin was found. The two requirements of the Aguilar-Spinelli test to establish probable are that the informant possesses basis of knowledge for the information relayed and there is something to indicate that the informant was reliable. There was evidence to believe that the informant was reliable as the informant stated that the defendant who was a black man and a black woman was selling $40 bag of heroin at a motel in Albany in a specific room. Further, a known cocaine drug addict was found lurking around the room where the defendant was found but ran away when he saw the police officers watching. One of the detective who was observing the motel stated that he knew that the defendant to be black male with a criminal history of selling heroin from motel rooms.

The defendant asserted that there was no exception to forcibly enter a room without a warrant requirement even where there was probable cause to suspect that criminal activity. This was assertion was without merit as there was evidence to justify the entry into the motel room as there was a fear the defendant would have destroyed the evidence after one of the defendant’s buyer’s fled the scene. One of the detective stated that the police only entered the room to secure it however, the saw the defendant destroying the evidence flushing it. Therefore, the material had to be seized and the defendant arrested.

The defendant also asserted that the trial court erred in ruling that he was mentally competent to stand trial. However, the assertion was baseless as the prosecution presented two expert reports of a psychiatrist and a psychologist who testified that he was competent to stand trial. The testimony stated that the defendant understood the nature of the proceeding and his ability to participate in the trial. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to show that he was competent and his actions during trial were not contrary to the findings. The defendant received a fair trial with adequate legal representation and the sentence imposed was not excessive.

A New York City Criminal Attorney can assist with any matter associated with possession of a controlled substance. A New York City Lawyer knows how to act in your best interest to ensure that you are not exposed to prejudicial treatment by a warrantless search. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we offer excellent legal services to assist you with your legal problems to achieve the best results. Our offices are conveniently located throughout New York City and we offer free consultations.

Contact Information