People v. Miller, 69 N.Y.2d 842 (1987)
A defendant must assert a present possessory interest or a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched to have standing to challenge a warrantless search, and objections must be specific enough to alert the trial court to the argument being raised on appeal to preserve the issue for review.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the defendant’s suppression motion was appropriately denied because he failed to sufficiently assert a present possessory interest or reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment searched. The Court also held that the defendant’s challenge to the valuation of stolen checks was unpreserved for appellate review because his trial objection was not specific enough to alert the trial court to the argument he was now raising on appeal. The Court reasoned that a mere reference to an allegation in the felony complaint was insufficient to establish standing and that general objections do not preserve specific valuation arguments for appeal.
Facts
The defendant was charged with criminal possession of stolen property. The evidence the People sought to admit was found in the defendant’s apartment. In his suppression motion, the defendant, through counsel, referred to the allegation in the felony complaint that the evidence was found “in defendant’s apartment” but did not allege any present possessory interest in the apartment. The defendant was subsequently convicted of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. The value of the stolen checks at the time they were recovered (with amounts filled in) exceeded $250.
Procedural History
The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, which was denied. He was subsequently convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The defendant then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied due to his failure to assert a sufficient factual basis demonstrating a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched apartment.
2. Whether the defendant’s challenge to the valuation of the stolen checks was preserved for appellate review.
Holding
1. No, because the defendant’s reference to the allegation in the felony complaint was insufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched apartment, necessitating a hearing on the suppression motion.
2. No, because the defendant’s objection at trial was not specific enough to alert the trial judge to the argument he now presents on appeal regarding the valuation of the stolen checks at the time of the theft.
Court’s Reasoning
Regarding the suppression motion, the Court of Appeals found that the defendant’s mere reference to the allegation in the felony complaint that the evidence was found in his apartment did not amount to a sufficient factual assertion that he had an expectation of privacy in the area searched. The Court cited CPL 710.60 [1] and [3], noting that the defendant needed to allege a present possessory interest to warrant a hearing. The Court also rejected the defendant’s argument that his failure to allege facts supporting standing was justified by a fear of self-incrimination in Canada, as this argument was not raised in the suppression motion itself.
Regarding the valuation of the stolen checks, the Court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review because his objection at trial was not specific enough. The Court cited People v. Dekle, 56 NY2d 835, emphasizing that the trial judge must be alerted to the specific argument being raised on appeal. The Court stated that the defendant’s objection that “the People failed to establish a value exceeding $250” did not alert the trial judge to the argument that value must be established at the time of the theft. The court reasoned that a general objection is not sufficient to preserve a specific argument for appellate review.
The court emphasized the importance of raising specific objections at trial to allow the trial court to address the issue and potentially correct any error. “[T]he suppression court appropriately concluded that defendant’s suppression motion should be summarily denied.” The court also implicitly highlights the burden on the defendant to demonstrate standing to challenge a search.