People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 1030 (1982)
A defendant must raise a constitutional challenge to police conduct during a suppression hearing to preserve the issue for appellate review; failure to do so forfeits the right to raise the issue on appeal.
Summary
Gonzalez was arrested in his home, and evidence was seized. At the suppression hearing, he argued the evidence should be suppressed because it resulted from an unauthorized general search, not from items in plain view. He did not challenge the legality of the officers’ entry into his home without a warrant. The Court of Appeals held that because Gonzalez failed to raise the warrantless entry issue at the suppression hearing, he could not raise it for the first time on appeal. This preservation rule ensures the People have a fair opportunity to present evidence on the issue and prevents unnecessary retrials.
Facts
The police arrested Gonzalez in his home, and during the arrest, they seized evidence.
Later, pursuant to a search warrant, additional evidence was seized.
At the suppression hearing, Gonzalez argued that all the seized evidence should be suppressed.
Procedural History
The suppression court denied Gonzalez’s motion to suppress the evidence.
Gonzalez was subsequently convicted.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
Gonzalez appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing for the first time that the police illegally entered his home without a warrant to arrest him, violating Payton v. New York.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant who fails to raise a constitutional challenge to the legality of a warrantless police entry into his home during a suppression hearing can raise that issue for the first time on appeal.
Holding
No, because the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by not raising it in the initial suppression motion, depriving the People of a fair opportunity to present their proof on that issue.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of issue preservation. It stated that the defendant argued only that the search was general and not a plain view observation. The court stated, “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 for reversal on appeal to this court.” The court reasoned that failing to raise the issue at the trial level deprives the People of the opportunity to present evidence and create an adequate record for appellate review. As the court noted, 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. The court also noted the importance of raising issues promptly to avoid retrials. The court distinguished between the exigencies required to justify a warrantless arrest versus a warrantless search, suggesting the People were not given adequate opportunity to present evidence on the exigency of the arrest since the motion only challenged the search. The court declined to address the retroactivity of Payton v. New York or the inadvertence of the plain view discovery, as the former was not preserved and the latter was a factual finding beyond their review. The court emphasized, “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.”