Title: The People v. Hunter

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 103  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Shawn Hunter,
            Appellant.
Matthew J. Clark, for appellant.
Joseph D. Waldorf, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed
and the matter remitted to that court for consideration of issues
raised but not determined on the appeal to that court.   
It is well settled that a defendant seeking suppression
of evidence obtained as the result of an alleged illegal search
- 1 -
- 2 -
No. 103
must prove standing to challenge the search (see People v
Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 108 [1996]).  At issue in this
appeal is the related question of whether the People must timely
object to a defendant's failure to prove standing in order to
preserve that issue for appellate review.  We previously answered
this question in the affirmative in People v Stith (69 NY2d 313
[1987]), and reiterate that holding today.
In October 2005, officers effected a warrantless entry
into an apartment, apprehended defendant and recovered buy money
from a "buy and bust" transaction that defendant had engaged in
with an undercover officer.  Defendant moved to suppress the buy
money, claiming that it was obtained as the result of an unlawful
warrantless entry and search of his home.  The People countered
that the entry was justified under the doctrines of "exigent
circumstances" and/or "hot pursuit."  They also contended that
the search of the apartment was supported by the written consent
of the tenant, defendant's mother.
At the suppression hearing, the People called two
police officers who were engaged in the pursuit; defendant called
no witnesses.  Supreme Court denied defendant's motion to
suppress, upholding the warrantless entry based upon the "exigent
circumstances" and "hot pursuit" exceptions to the warrant
requirement.  Since the issue of defendant's standing was not
raised, the Court had no occasion to rule on that issue.
Defendant then pleaded guilty to criminal possession
- 2 -
- 3 -
No. 103
and sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and
promptly appealed his conviction arguing that Supreme Court erred
in its suppression ruling.  The Appellate Division affirmed the  
conviction, albeit on a ground that had not been presented to the
suppression court, holding that defendant "failed to establish
that he had standing to challenge the search of the apartment in
which he was arrested."  In light of that determination, the
court declined to consider defendant's remaining arguments (70
AD3d 1343, 1344 [4th Dept 2010]).  A Judge of this Court granted
defendant leave to appeal and we now reverse. 
In People v Stith, this Court refused to consider the
People's argument that the defendant lacked standing to challenge
the legality of the seizure of a weapon, noting that such
argument "was raised for the first time at the Appellate Division
and thus is not preserved for our review" (69 NY2d at 320). 
Since our pronouncement in Stith, however, three of the four
Appellate Departments have issued rulings counter to this
holding, concluding that because it is the defendant's initial
burden to establish standing, the People may raise defendant's
lack of standing for the first time on appeal (see People v
McCall, 51 AD3d 822, 822 [2d Dept 2008] lv denied 11 NY3d 856
[2008]; People v Hooper, 245 AD2d 1020, 1021 [4th Dept 1997];
People v Banks, 202 AD2d 902, 904 [3d Dept 1994] revd on other
grounds 85 NY2d 558 [1995]; but see People v Graham, 211 AD2d 55,
57-58 [1st Dept 1995] lv denied 86 NY2d 795 [1995] [finding
unpreserved the People's contention that the defendant lacked
- 3 -
- 4 -
No. 103
standing to challenge a search, noting that the People failed to
raise the issue in either their motion opposing suppression or at
the hearing]).  To the extent that those and similar decisions
may be read to not require the People to timely object to a
defendant's lack of standing so as to preserve that issue for
appellate review, they are no longer to be followed.
Here, the People did not challenge defendant's claim
that he possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his
mother's apartment, and therefore did not assert a claim that
defendant lacked standing.  Given that the primary reason for
"demanding notice through objection or motion in a trial court,
as with any specific objection, is to bring the claim to the
trial court’s attention" (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 20-21
[1995]), the People are required to alert the suppression court
if they believe that the defendant has failed to meet his burden
to establish standing (see People v Carter, 86 NY2d 721, 722-723
[1995] [setting forth the premise that a defendant "must allege
standing to challenge the search and, if the allegation is
disputed, must establish standing" (emphasis supplied)]).  The
preservation requirement serves the added purpose of alerting the
adverse party of the need to develop a record for appeal.  Here,
because the People failed to preserve the issue, the Appellate
Division erred in entertaining it.
- 4 -
- 5 -
No. 103
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division,
Fourth Department, for consideration of issues raised but not
determined on the appeal to that court, in a memorandum.  Chief
Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott
and Jones concur.
Decided June 2, 2011
- 5 -