People v. Cappellino, 49 N.Y.2d 788 (1980)

An issue not raised before the suppression court is not preserved for appellate review.

Summary

Cappellino was arrested and subsequently moved to suppress evidence, arguing a lack of probable cause for his arrest and the arresting officers’ failure to state their purpose and authority. He did not argue that the arrest in his home was unlawful because it was conducted without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances, as required by Payton v. New York. The New York Court of Appeals held that by failing to raise this specific argument before the suppression court, Cappellino failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. Therefore, the court did not need to address the retroactivity of the Payton decision.

Facts

The defendant, Cappellino, was arrested. Subsequent to the arrest, Cappellino moved to suppress certain evidence.

Procedural History

Cappellino moved to suppress evidence. The suppression court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the suppression court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant, by failing to argue before the suppression court that his arrest was unlawful because it was conducted in his home without a warrant and without exigent circumstances, preserved that issue for appellate review.

Holding

No, because by not raising the argument before the suppression court, the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals based its decision on the principle that issues must be properly raised at the trial level to be considered on appeal. The court stated that “[a]t no time before the suppression court did defendant raise the issue that the weapon should have been suppressed because his arrest was effected in his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances.” Because the defendant failed to raise the Payton argument before the suppression court, the court held that it did not need to reach the question of whether the rule announced in Payton v. New York should be applied retroactively. The court cited People v. Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, to support the principle that issues must be raised at the initial suppression hearing to be preserved for appeal. The court emphasized the importance of raising specific arguments at the trial level so that the opposing party has an opportunity to respond and the court can make an informed decision based on a complete record. The Court of Appeals thus reinforced the established principle of appellate review that limits consideration to issues properly presented and preserved in the lower courts.