In People v Madera (125 A.D.2d 238), we held that the codefendant passenger in the vehicle driven by appellant had standing to contest its stop, and that codefendant's motion papers raised sufficient factual allegations to warrant a hearing pursuant to CPL 710.60(4).Summary of this case from People v. Henriquez
December 16, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Carol Berkman, J., John A.K. Bradley, J.
It was error for the hearing court to summarily deny defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence without holding a Mapp hearing, as required by CPL 710.60 (4). Defendant's motion papers alleged that the police had no reason to stop the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger, since it was being driven, with permission, by the brother of the vehicle's owner, was being operated in a lawful manner, and defendant and the driver were not engaged in any unlawful or suspicious conduct. Accordingly, defendant argued, the physical evidence seized as a result of that illegal stop must be suppressed. The People's affirmation in opposition asserted that, as a passenger, defendant lacked standing to challenge the stop of the car; he had failed to allege sufficient facts to support a ground for suppression; and, he and the driver were engaged in unlawful activity by riding in a car which had been confiscated by the police.
Assuming the truth of defendant's claims that he and the driver were legally present in this car, that the car was being driven in a lawful manner and that they were not behaving in any manner which would arouse a police officer's suspicion, he has raised sufficient facts to support the grant of suppression. (See, People v. Martinez, 111 A.D.2d 30.)
The People's claim, that the car had been confiscated with respect to an arrest of other suspects and left parked in front of the 7th Precinct with its coil removed, raised a question of fact as to whether or not the car had in fact been stolen, which would justify the stop of this car and the arrest of its driver and passenger. This disputed issue, however, should have been resolved at an evidentiary hearing. (See, People v. Banks, 100 A.D.2d 780; People v. McNeil, 55 A.D.2d 573.)
Finally, defendant, a passenger in the car, had standing to contest the legality of the initial stop and his forcible removal from the car and arrest as an unreasonable seizure of his person subject to 4th Amendment protection. (People v. Abrams, 119 A.D.2d 682, 683; People v. Dawson, 115 A.D.2d 611, 612; People v. Smith, 106 A.D.2d 525, 526; cf. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 150-151 [Powell, J., concurring].) Accordingly, we remand for a Mapp hearing and hold this appeal in abeyance.
Concur — Sandler, J.P., Carro, Asch and Milonas, JJ.