Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The police had ample basis upon which to conclude that defendant was the same person who had been identified by several named eyewitnesses to the murder, along with an anonymous eyewitness whose information was sufficiently corroborated to warrant the conclusion that he was reliable and was speaking from personal knowledge. These eyewitnesses provided a collective description of defendant including his first name, his physical...
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.
