Whether the New York Courts erred in denying a Darden hearing and circumventing constitutional requirements to obtain a conviction

The New York Courts ’ requirements for establishing probable cause are not adhered to in the case at bar. When probable cause is totally reliant on informants, the People are required to produce informant ex parte . Only when probable cause exists outside hearsay testimony of an informant (s), is it not required for an informant(s) to be produced. Moreover, the People may not solicit or use information outside the four corners of the warrant affidavit. The magistrate is only permitted to use what was known to the issuing magistrate from information given under oath or affirmation. Furthermore, there are Supreme and Federal standards that courts must adhere to in order to obtain convictions. This case presents the opportunity to explain what are constitutional requirements of courts in fourth amendments cases. When are constitutional requirements circumvented. Additionally, why recognizing it when it occurs is an essential part of being a competent criminal defense lawyer. The questions presented are: I. Whether the New York Courts erred when the judge sua sponte denied a Darden hearing? II. Whether the Nev? York Supreme Court circumvented constitutional requirements to obtain conviction? III. Whether probable cause existed to obtain a warrant? IV. Whether counsel was ineffective? V. Whether New York Courts violated equal right / due process to obtain conviction?