People v. Martin
Citation | 50 N.Y.2d 1029,431 N.Y.S.2d 689,409 N.E.2d 1363 |
Parties | , 409 N.E.2d 1363 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Stephen D. MARTIN, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 03 July 1980 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 65 A.D.2d 678, 409 N.Y.S.2d 471, should be affirmed.
It is defendant's contention that, although the police may have had probable cause to arrest him, they acted improperly when they entered his home for that purpose without first obtaining an arrest warrant (Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. ---, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639). Consequently, defendant argues, the evidence obtained as a result of the entry should have been suppressed. During his suppression hearing, however, defendant argued only that the physical evidence seized in conjunction with his arrest should be excluded because it was found by the arresting officers as a result of an unauthorized "general search" and not, as the People contended, through an inadvertent discovery of items lying "in plain view". 1 At no time did defendant request the court to rule upon the propriety of the police officers' presence on the premises, and, in fact, the only issue that was placed before the suppression court was the fundamentally factual question whether the testimony of the police officers concerning their observations upon entering was credible under the circumstances.
Having thus failed to raise a constitutional challenge to the police officers' entry into his home within the context of his initial suppression motion, defendant is now foreclosed by our rule of "preservation" from advancing any such ground or reversal on appeal to this court (People v. Booker, 49 N.Y.2d 989, 429 N.Y.S.2d 168, 406 N.E.2d 1062; People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920; cf. People v. De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210, 214, 386 N.Y.S.2d 375, 352 N.E.2d 562). As we noted in People v. Tutt, supra, 38 N.Y.2d at pp. 1012-1013, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920, when a defendant neglects to raise a particular legal argument before the court of first instance, he effectively deprives the People of a fair opportunity to present their proof on that issue, and, as a consequence, the resulting record is inadequate to permit the appellate court to make an intelligent determination on the merits. 2 Moreover, our rule of "preservation" requires defendants to raise all of their arguments in a timely fashion so that errors of law which might otherwise necessitate a retrial can be avoided or promptly cured (see People v. Michael, 48 N.Y.2d 1, 6, 420 N.Y.S.2d 371, 394 N.E.2d 1134). In this case, defendant was required to raise his constitutional challenge to the arrest before the suppression court if he intended to base his appeal from its decision upon that ground. Since he failed to do so and thereby failed to give the suppression court an opportunity to consider the question before the proceeding against him progressed any further, defendant cannot now rely upon the constitutional issue as a ground for reversal in this court.
In view of our holding, we need not reach the question whether the rule articulated by the Supreme Court in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639, supra should be applied retroactively to invalidate arrests made prior to the date of that ruling. Finally, we note that defendant's contention that the police officers' discovery of the evidence lying "in plain view" was not truly inadvertent cannot provide a basis for reversal, since the question of "inadvertence" is essentially one of fact which may be resolved only through an assessment of the credibility of the various witnesses (People v. Payton, 45 N.Y.2d 300, 312-313, 408 N.Y.S.2d 395, 380 N.E.2d 224, revd. on other grounds 445 U.S. ---, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639). Here, the trier of fact explicitly found on the basis of legally sufficient evidence that the items in question had been lying "in plain view" and had been found by the police purely by chance. This factual determination having been made and affirmed below, the question of "inadvertence" is now beyond our power of review .
I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the legality of the search and seizure, as an incident to the defendant's arrest, is not reviewable in this court. I also believe that the People did not meet their burden of proving that their actions were justified by exigency or any exception to the warrant requirement. Consequently, the evidence seized is inadmissible and the judgment of conviction should be reversed.
The real evidence against the defendant was seized on two occasions in October, 1975, by members of an anticrime team of the New York Police Department assigned to the 123rd Precinct in Staten Island. Following denial of his motion to suppress the defendant pleaded guilty to felony possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed, without opinion.
The facts adduced at the pretrial hearing establish that the initial search and seizure of October 13, 1975 was unlawful in that it was warrantless and without any constitutionally cognizable justification. On that date, Theresa Long, a 16 year old, entered the police station shortly after noon and requested to be assisted in her return to a drug rehabilitation center in New Jersey. Miss Long who was not known to the police, had track marks on her arms and admitted using drugs. She claimed that she had been living with the defendant on a barge which was moored in the Arthur Kill, Staten Island. She discovered that she had sexual relations with the defendant and that Martin had drugs and guns on the barge. The girl's parents were summoned to the precinct and, after being apprised of their daughter's statements, were asked whether they wanted to press charges. They responded affirmatively and five police officers were dispatched to the defendant's residence. Approximately three hours elapsed from the time Miss Long entered the precinct and the police officers arrived at the barge.
Although there was no reason for concern about flight, destruction of evidence or public safety, the police ignored the warrant requirement and proceeded directly to Martin's home. The leader of the "anti-crime team" knocked on the door and when Martin responded, the detective announced that they were police officers and ordered him to stick his hands out of the door. Martin obeyed and was immediately placed under arrest. The police then directed him back into the barge at gunpoint. Martin who was wearing only undershorts was permitted to put on his clothes which were on a nearby chair and was then handcuffed. These events took about seven minutes; nevertheless, the police officers remained inside the barge for almost an hour.
During this period various items were seized. The testimony established that one of the officers found a .22 caliber derringer in an open drawer in the night table next to defendant's bed. Another member of the police team seized a revolver from a chair. Two hypodermic syringes and cotton balls were also taken. When the officers were finished they obtained...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New York v. Quarles, 82-1213
...record on the issue, and it is unclear whether the question is preserved under New York's procedural law. People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 431 N.Y.S.2d 689, 409 N.E.2d 1363 (1980); People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920 (1976). Second, the New York Rules of Crimin......
-
People v. Ridgeway
...384 N.Y.S.2d 444, 348 N.E.2d 920; People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772, 469 N.Y.S.2d 680, 457 N.E.2d 786; see People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 431 N.Y.S.2d 689, 409 N.E.2d 1363; People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22, 32-42, 440 N.Y.S.2d 248).2 The court in People v. Samuels, 49 N.Y.2d 218, 221, 424 N.......
-
People v. Foster
...consideration of preservation by providing the court with an opportunity to avoid or cure an error of law (see People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 431 N.Y.S.2d 689, 409 N.E.2d 1363). Jerry Foster's subsequently failed attempt to exercise a peremptory challenge "hardly demonstrated a clear int......
-
People v. Campos
...to see whether there is a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended. People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 1031, n. 2, 431 N.Y.S.2d 689, 409 N.E.2d 1363 (1980) ; People v. Murray, 277 A.D.2d 96, 716 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1st Dept.2000) ; People v. Cloud, 168 A.D.2d 91, 571 N.Y.......