6 N.Y.3d 584 (2006)
A defendant can establish standing to challenge a search and seizure by relying on the People’s evidence, such as a police officer’s statement, to show that the search occurred, without personally admitting possession of the contraband.
Summary
Thomas Burton was arrested after a police officer allegedly found crack cocaine in his pocket during a search. Burton moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was unlawful because he was searched without probable cause. The prosecution argued Burton lacked standing because he didn’t admit the drugs were his. The New York Court of Appeals held that Burton’s motion, combined with the officer’s statement, was sufficient to establish standing, even without Burton’s admission of possession, and that a hearing was required to determine the legality of the search.
Facts
On January 16, 2001, a police officer searched Thomas Burton on a Manhattan street. The officer allegedly found a plastic bag containing crack cocaine in Burton’s sweatpants pocket. Burton was subsequently charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance.
Procedural History
Burton moved to suppress the drug evidence, but the Supreme Court denied the motion without a hearing, finding he lacked standing. Burton pleaded guilty but appealed the suppression ruling. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the suppression motion. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant must personally admit possession of contraband to establish standing to challenge the legality of a search that yielded the contraband, or whether the defendant can rely on the prosecution’s evidence to establish standing.
Holding
No, because a defendant can rely on the People’s evidence, including statements from law enforcement, to establish standing to challenge a search without admitting possession of the contraband, provided the defendant also alleges the search was not legally justified.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPL 710.60(1) allows a defendant to rely on allegations of fact from “the defendant or…another person or persons” to support a motion to suppress. The Court highlighted precedent allowing defendants to use the People’s proof to demonstrate standing, including statements from law enforcement officials. The Court distinguished between situations where probable cause is based on a buy-and-bust scenario (requiring a denial of participation) and situations where probable cause is based on furtive behavior. In the latter, a defendant can raise a factual issue by alleging they were doing nothing wrong when the police searched them. The Court emphasized that Burton alleged he was searched without legal justification while doing nothing suspicious. This, combined with the officer’s statement that drugs were found on Burton, was sufficient to require a hearing to determine the legality of the search. The court clarified that this ruling does not resurrect the “automatic standing” doctrine, as a defendant must still assert the search was not legally justified and provide factual allegations to support that contention. According to the court, “[S]tanding does not arise from a defense motion to suppress that merely states, as attested by police, that the arresting officer conducted a search of the accused’s person and allegedly found narcotics in an article of clothing—this alone does not create an issue of fact as to whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred. A defendant must additionally assert that the search was not legally justified and there must be sufficient factual allegations to support that contention”.