Opinion
June 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, Marshall, J.
Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the record of the suppression hearing, we conclude that the police had probable cause to believe that defendant was implicated in a homicide and thus conclude that her warrantless arrest was justified (see, People v. Carrasquillo, 54 N.Y.2d 248, 254; People v. LeGrand, 142 A.D.2d 977, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 893). Probable cause was established by the sworn statements provided by citizen informants, along with other incriminating evidence uncovered during the police investigation. Since the statements were from citizen informants, they were properly considered by the suppression court without the necessity of an independent showing of reliability (see, People v. Hicks, 38 N.Y.2d 90, 93-94; People v Cantre, 95 A.D.2d 522, 526, affd 65 N.Y.2d 790, 792). Contrary to defendant's argument, the Aguilar-Spinelli standard is not applicable because these statements were based on personal observations or conversations with defendant or codefendants (see, People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225, 234; People v Meranto, 86 A.D.2d 776). The fact that the People redacted the names of the individuals from copies of the statements provided to defense counsel is irrelevant on the issue of probable cause. Additionally, defendant has no absolute right to disclosure of the identities of the informants (see, People v. Peterson, 159 A.D.2d 983; People v. Diaz, 147 A.D.2d 912, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 1014; People v. Delgado, 134 A.D.2d 951, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 895) and, since defendant failed to allege any prejudice by this nondisclosure, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informants' identities at the suppression hearing (see, People v. Huggins, 36 N.Y.2d 827, 828; People v. Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, cert denied 419 U.S. 1012; People v. Cerrato, 24 N.Y.2d 1, 6-7, cert denied 397 U.S. 940; People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 92).