People v. Carter
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
| Citation | 631 N.Y.S.2d 116,86 N.Y.2d 721,655 N.E.2d 157 |
| Parties | , 655 N.E.2d 157 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James L. CARTER, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1995 |
Page 116
v.
James L. CARTER, Appellant.
[86 N.Y.2d 722] James L. Carter, Attica, appellant pro se, and Hancock & Estabrook, Syracuse (Alan J. Pierce, of counsel), for appellant.
Sol Greenberg, District Attorney of Albany County, Albany (John E. Maney, of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant, a passenger in a vehicle whose stop for a traffic offense ultimately resulted in the seizure of a quantity of crack and powder cocaine, was found guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, conspiracy in the second degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, affirmed the judgment of conviction, ruling, among other things, that defendant had no
Page 117
[655 N.E.2d 158] standing to contest the search of the automobile.Defendant's primary claim on this appeal is that although he was neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle, he nevertheless had standing to challenge its search pursuant to the limited form of automatic standing still recognized by this Court (see, People v. Millan, 69 N.Y.2d 514, 516 N.Y.S.2d 168, 508 N.E.2d 903). Because defendant failed to assert this claim at the suppression hearing, his contention is not preserved for our review.
Here, a vehicular search conducted with the driver's consent yielded a small amount of powder cocaine concealed in the rear seat. As a result, all of the vehicle's occupants were arrested under the "automobile presumption" that all four knowingly possessed the contraband (see, Penal Law § 220.25[1] ). Subsequently, a much larger amount of crack cocaine was recovered from the person of one of the passengers, LaTonya Porter. Porter was allowed to plead to a reduced charge, and testified for the People before the Grand Jury. The remaining three defendants were indicted on conspiracy and felony possession charges related to the crack cocaine. Only defendant Carter was charged additionally with the smaller amount of powder cocaine recovered from the automobile seat.
In general, a defendant seeking to suppress evidence, on the [86 N.Y.2d 723] basis that it was obtained by means of an illegal search, must allege standing to challenge the search and, if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nelson, 106724
...v. Williams , 300 A.D.2d 684, 684–685, 752 N.Y.S.2d 709 [2002] ; People v. Carter , 199 A.D.2d 817, 819, 606 N.Y.S.2d 786 [1993], affd 86 N.Y.2d 721, 631 N.Y.S.2d 116, 655 N.E.2d 157 [1995] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the circumstances presented "justifie[d] the search of every p......
-
People v. Turriago
...inquiries]; People v. Carter, 199 A.D.2d 817, 606 N.Y.S.2d 786 [obviously false response to initial request for information], affd. 86 N.Y.2d 721, 631 N.Y.S.2d 116, 655 N.E.2d 157; People v. Sora, 176 A.D.2d 1172, 575 N.Y.S.2d 970, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 864, 580 N.Y.S.2d 736, 588 N.E.2d 771 ......
-
People v. Biggs, 2020-05377
...as a basis for suppression (see People v Lieberman, 47 N.Y.2d 931, 932; People v Smith, 113 A.D.2d 905, 907; see also People v Carter, 86 N.Y.2d 721, 723; People v Brown, 81 N.Y.2d 798, 799). Defense counsel's closing arguments at the suppression hearing did not raise or contest the impound......
-
People v. Harris, 2017–05563
...search, must allege standing to challenge the search and, if the allegation is disputed, must establish standing" ( People v. Carter, 86 N.Y.2d 721, 722–723, 631 N.Y.S.2d 116, 655 N.E.2d 157 ). Of course, the Court of Appeals has made clear that the issue of standing must be preserved, and ......