¶ On this appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress certain tape-recorded conversations made on the grounds that: (1) there was a lack of probable cause to issue the eavesdropping warrant; (2) a six-day delay in sealing the warrant violated CPL 700.50 (subd 2); (3) the police knew the "wiretap" would become an improper "bug" when the intercepted telephone was "left off the hook"; and (4) there was a failure to timely deliver...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
