86 N.Y.2d 721 (1995)
A defendant’s failure to assert standing to challenge a search at the suppression hearing forfeits the right to raise that Fourth Amendment claim on appeal.
Summary
Defendant Carter was convicted of drug offenses. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding Carter lacked standing to contest the search of a vehicle. Carter appealed, arguing he had standing under the “automatic standing” rule of People v. Millan. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Carter failed to raise the standing issue at the suppression hearing, the claim was unpreserved for appellate review. A defendant must assert standing to challenge a search and seizure to preserve the issue for appeal.
Facts
Police stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. Carter was a passenger. A search of the vehicle, conducted with the driver’s consent, revealed a small quantity of powder cocaine in the back seat. All occupants, including Carter, were arrested. A subsequent search of another passenger, Porter, revealed a large amount of crack cocaine. Porter pleaded to a reduced charge and testified before the grand jury. Carter, along with others, was indicted on conspiracy and felony possession charges related to the crack cocaine. Carter was also charged with possession of the powder cocaine found in the car.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted Carter. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, holding Carter lacked standing to contest the vehicle search. Carter appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant, who fails to assert standing to challenge a vehicle search at the suppression hearing, can raise that Fourth Amendment claim for the first time on appeal.
Holding
No, because a defendant must assert standing to challenge a search and seizure in order to preserve the issue for appellate review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the established rule that a defendant seeking to suppress evidence obtained via an illegal search must allege standing to challenge the search. If standing is disputed, the defendant bears the burden of establishing it. The Court cited Jones v. United States, People v. Ponder, and People v. Gonzalez in support of this principle. The Court noted that Carter never asserted standing in his omnibus motion or at any point during the suppression proceedings, despite the prosecution consistently contesting his standing. Because Carter failed to raise the standing issue at the trial level, the Court deemed the argument unpreserved for appellate review. The court stated, “In general, a defendant seeking to suppress evidence, on the basis that it was obtained by means of an illegal search, must allege standing to challenge the search and, if the allegation is disputed, must establish standing”. The court emphasized that appellate courts are generally limited to reviewing issues that were properly raised and preserved in the lower courts. The Court considered Carter’s remaining arguments and found them to be without merit, thus affirming the lower court’s decision.