People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 950 (1986)
A defendant can establish standing to challenge a search and seizure using hearsay evidence presented during the prosecution’s case, and the defendant is not required to testify personally to meet their burden of proof.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order suppressing evidence, holding that the defendant had standing to challenge the search of a bag in a car, even though he didn’t testify. The court reasoned that the prosecution’s own evidence, including the police officer’s testimony about the defendant’s statement that he borrowed the car and the production of the car’s registration, was sufficient to establish standing. The court further clarified that hearsay evidence is admissible at suppression hearings under CPL 710.60(4), and the prosecution failed to establish consent or probable cause for the search.
Facts
The defendant was arrested in a car. A police officer testified at the suppression hearing that the defendant stated post-arrest that he had borrowed the car from a friend. The defendant produced the vehicle’s registration from the glove compartment at the officer’s request. A subsequent check revealed no stolen vehicle reports. A bag resting between the defendant and the driver on the front seat of the car was searched, revealing empty glassine envelopes, which led to the defendant’s arrest and a search of his person, yielding cocaine.
Procedural History
The trial court initially suppressed the evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the suppression order. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant had standing to challenge the seizure and search of the bag, even without personally testifying, based on evidence presented by the prosecution, including hearsay testimony.
Holding
Yes, because the police officer’s testimony that the defendant claimed to have borrowed the car, along with the defendant’s production of the car’s registration, was sufficient to establish standing. The court also held that hearsay evidence is admissible at suppression hearings.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals found that the defendant met his burden of establishing standing to challenge the search and seizure. The court emphasized that a defendant isn’t required to testify to prove standing, citing People v. Ponder, 54 NY2d 160, 166. Evidence elicited during the People’s direct case can be used to support the defendant’s standing claim. The court stated, “There is no requirement that a defendant testify in order to sustain his burden of proving standing (see, People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160, 166), and evidence elicited during the People’s direct case may be cited in support of a defendant’s standing claim.” Further, the court pointed out that CPL 710.60(4) permits the use of hearsay at suppression hearings, so the fact that the evidence was introduced in hearsay form was not objectionable. The court concluded that without consent or a constitutional basis for the search, the observation of the glassine envelopes was unauthorized. Therefore, the subsequent search of the defendant and seizure of cocaine were invalid.