People v. Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 13 November 1986 |
| Citation | 510 N.Y.S.2d 86,502 N.E.2d 1001,68 N.Y.2d 950 |
| Parties | , 502 N.E.2d 1001 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Antonio GONZALEZ, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 115 A.D.2d 73, 499 N.Y.S.2d 400, should be affirmed.
The police officer testified at the suppression hearing that defendant's postarrest statement included an assertion that he had borrowed the car in which he was arrested from a friend. There was also evidence that defendant had produced the vehicle's registration from the glove compartment at the officer's request and that a subsequent check had revealed no stolen vehicle reports. In the absence of contrary proof, the evidence was sufficient to establish defendant's standing to challenge the seizure and search of a bag that was resting between him and the driver on the front seat of the car. There is no requirement that a defendant testify in order to sustain his burden of proving standing (see, People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160, 166, 445 N.Y.S.2d 57, 429 N.E.2d 735), and evidence elicited during the People's direct case may be cited in support of a defendant's standing claim. Moreover, the fact that the evidence may have been introduced in hearsay form does not render it objectionable, since CPL 710.60(4) authorizes the use of hearsay at suppression hearings.
Having concluded that defendant's standing was sufficiently established, we need note only that we find no reason to disturb the Appellate Division's finding that the officer had neither the driver's consent to nor an adequate constitutional predicate for the seizure and search of the bag (see, People v. King, 61 N.Y.2d 969, 971, 475 N.Y.S.2d 275, 463 N.E.2d 616; People v. Krom, 61 N.Y.2d 187, 196, 473 N.Y.S.2d 139, 461 N.E.2d 276; People v. Harrison, 57 N.Y.2d 470, 457 N.Y.S.2d 199, 443 N.E.2d 447). Thus, the officer's observation of the empty glassine envelopes inside a box contained in the bag was unauthorized and cannot be used as a justification for defendant's arrest and the subsequent search of defendant's person. Accordingly, the cocaine the officer found as a result of that search was properly suppressed.
KAYE, J., taking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hyde
...state called Commissioner Gerst to testify, her testimony might have met defendant's burden. See People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 950, 510 N.Y.S.2d 86, 86-87, 502 N.E.2d 1001, 1001-02 (1986) (holding that the state's evidence satisfied defendant's burden to establish his standing although defe......
-
Avincola v. Stinson
...under New York law, hearsay evidence is admissible at a suppression hearing. See N.Y. CPL § 710.60(4); People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 950, 951, 510 N.Y.S.2d 86, 87, 502 N.E.2d 1001 (1986). Furthermore, there is no constitutional rule disallowing hearsay testimony in a suppression hearing, an......
-
United States v. Castellanos
...(“[I]t may happen that the burden is actually met ... by evidence given by the [government].”), citing People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 950, 510 N.Y.S.2d 86, 502 N.E.2d 1001, 1002 (1986) (“[E]vidence elicited during the People's direct case may be cited in support of a defendant's standing cla......
-
Lopez v. Greiner
...Reply 17.) See People v. Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 109, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207 (1996); People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 950, 950, 510 N.Y.S.2d 86, 502 N.E.2d 1001 (1986). The Court need not resolve this issue of New York law. Under Strickland, the question is not whether a hyp......
-
B. Standing
...(1983); People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160, 445 N.Y.S.2d 57 (1981); People v. Gonzalez, 115 A.D.2d 73, 499 N.Y.S.2d 400 (1st Dep't), aff'd, 68 N.Y.2d 950, 510 N.Y.S.2d 86 (1986). [365] Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978). [366] 73 N.Y.2d 351, 540 N.Y.S.2d 757 (1989). [367] People v. Millan,......