 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT OFFICERS SEARCH WARRANT DEFENDANTS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION CONSTITUTION YORK POLICE INFORMANT EVIDENCE APPELLATE DIVISION CITY ARREST CONVICTION SCHENECTADY NY2D AFFIRM ASSERTING DAMAGES VIOLATIONS BROWN TERMINATION DRUG SUPPRESSION MOTION FALSE IMPRISONMENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING REMEDY |
3 No. 139
Melody Martinez,
Appellant,
v.
City of Schenectady, et al.,
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 122
November 19, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Arthur R. Frost, for appellant.
Nancy E. May-Skinner, for respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
The long history of this appeal began in September 1987 when, pursuant
to a search warrant, defendants -- Schenectady police officers --
entered the residence of plaintiff Melody Martinez, seized four ounces
of cocaine from a dresser drawer in her bedroom and arrested her.
The search warrant grew out of an investigation into suspected drug
activity at plaintiff's address. Two days before the arrest a
confidential informant advised Schenectady police that she could
obtain drugs from a woman named Melody at that address, and they
arranged for an uncontrolled buy to be made that same evening. The
informant went to plaintiff's residence without a police escort or
"buy" money and obtained the drugs, which she turned over to the
police. The next day, at the request of the police, the informant
placed a monitored telephone call to plaintiff, during which she made
references suggestive of a drug transaction. Based on two affidavits
signed "Confidential Informant," and one affidavit from a
defendant-officer, the police secured a search warrant for plaintiff's
residence. There they discovered the cocaine as well as mail addressed
to plaintiff at that location. They also obtained an admission from
plaintiff that she lived there, and they arrested her.
Charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the
first degree, plaintiff challenged the validity of the search warrant,
seeking the identity of the informant and suppression of evidence of
the telephone conversation and admission. Following a suppression
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
