People v. Swamp, [84 N.Y.2d 725] dealt with the issue of legally sufficient evidence before the grand jury. It held that a laboratory analysis report was not required for grand jury purposes and a field test could provide legally sufficient evidence of the alleged controlled substance. The Court further stated (at 730), "legally sufficient evidence--defined as 'competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof' (CPL 70.10 [1]) In People v Swamp, the defendant was indicted for unlawful possession of cocaine. The trial court dismissed the indictment. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated, determining that the observations and field testing of the substance by two trained officers were sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the defendant possessed cocaine. As the Swamp dissent in the Court of Appeals later observed, "there is no showing ... that the field test was generally accepted as reliable," and to the contrary 7 NYCRR 1010.5 (d) specifically cautions that " 'the results of a single test may or may not yield a valid result.' " (84 NY2d, at 735.) The Appellate Division nevertheless rejected the defendant's contention that results of a formal laboratory analysis were required to support an indictment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The dissent in Swamp objected that the trial court decision "was consistent with those cases requiring a laboratory report for the prosecution of, as opposed to the arrest of, an individual" (84 NY2d, at 734-735), and argued that "the evidence which is legally sufficient to indict must be legally sufficient to convict" (84 NY2d, at 736). The Court of Appeals majority, however, held: "In a drug-related prosecution, the People's case is legally sufficient if the evidence provides a 'reliable basis' for inferring the presence of a controlled substance ... "We conclude that the trial court erred when it held that in order to establish a prima facie case, CPL 190.30 (2) required the People to submit results of a formal laboratory analysis of the substance seized from defendant ... Here, the officer who performed the field test actually testified before the Grand Jury as to his own observations ... "The officer recounted the observations that led him to conclude defendant possessed cocaine, including the telltale packaging in which the substance was found--a substance that looked like crack-cocaine, which he had been trained to identify--and the presence of drug paraphernalia in defendant's car. The officer's testimony was probative of whether the substance found in defendant's possession was cocaine ... "This evidence provided a reasonable basis for the Grand Jury to infer defendant possessed cocaine . Proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not required at this stage." (84 NY2d, at 730-733.) The Court of Appeals reiterated that "in drug related prosecutions, the People's case is legally sufficient if the evidence provides a reliable basis' for inferring the presence of a controlled substance (citation omitted). More than conclusory assertions that the defendant possessed a drug are required at the Grand Jury stage ." The court then upheld the sufficiency of an indictment charging the defendant with unlawful possession of cocaine based upon the testimony of a United States Customs inspector who, based upon his training and experience in the preliminary identification of drugs by their appearance and packaging, as well as his experience and training in conducting preliminary field tests, identified the substance in the defendant's possession as cocaine. Although the preliminary field test report itself was not submitted to the Grand Jury, the court found it sufficient that "the officer who performed the field test actually testified before the Grand Jury as to his own observations." People v. Swamp, id. at 731, 622 NYS2d 472, 475 The Court of Appeals held that the People are not required to submit the results of a laboratory chemical analysis of a substance seized from a defendant in order to support a Grand Jury indictment for cocaine possession. Instead, the People could rely on a Customs inspector's observations that led him to conclude that the defendant possessed cocaine, including that the substance was contained in telltale packaging and looked like crack-cocaine, and drug paraphernalia was in the defendant's car, when accompanied by positive results of the Scott-Reagent field test. The inspector testified before the Grand Jury as to the training he had received and the extensive experience he had in performing the field test over 1,000 times. Noting that the Scott-Reagent field test is "routinely relied upon by law enforcement to determine the presence of a controlled substance" (People v Swamp, 84 NY2d, at 731), the Court of Appeals concluded that this evidence "provided far more support for the Grand Jury's determination than the showing found insufficient in People v Dumas (68 NY2d 729 [1986]), where the officer simply asserted that the defendant possessed marihuana without indicating the basis for that claim." (People v Swamp, supra, at 731.)