Court Opinion

ID: 9724642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:05:46.37299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:03.458569
License: Public Domain

ASHBY, J.J.
I concur. Even though defendant did not properly compel the People to elect to reveal the identity of the informant or not use the *520information supplied by him, the record shows that the trial court in finding probable cause based its finding on the observations of the police officers and not on the information supplied by the informant.1
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 5, 1976, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 24, 1976.

 The following exchange between the court and Deputy District Attorney Rosen occurred prior to the court’s ruling on defendant’s motion to suppress:
“THE COURT: When the defendants were eventually stopped and arrested why were they stopped?
“MR. ROSEN: They were stopped ... at that particular point in time by the officers for the activity which was observed for the entire day and the information they had about these individuals.
“THE COURT: I think there is enough activity here to support probable cause. Motion denied.”