People v. Gonzalez
Cases that cite this one
61 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State v. Hyde (Ariz. 1996)
- Bourassa v. State (Ga. 2019)
- United States v. Arturo Castellanos (4th Cir. 2013)
- People v. Burton (N.Y. 2006)
- People v. Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. Lewis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Lopez v. Greiner (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
- Avincola v. Stinson (District Court, S.D. New York 1999)
- People v. Ampadu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- People v. Valentin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Bourassa v. State of Georgia (Ga. 2019)
- People v. Hill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Trotter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Corona (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- People v. Way (New York Supreme Court 1990)
- People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- People v. Torres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- People v. White (New York Supreme Court, Erie County 2022)
- The People v. Eric Ibarguen (N.Y. 2021)
- People v. Dessasau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- People v. McCullum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- People v. Chazbani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- People v. Perez (New York Supreme Court 2012)
- In re Alan L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- People v. Scully (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The police officer testified at the suppression hearing that defendant’s postarrest statement included an assertion that he had borrowed the car in which he was arrested from a friend. There was also evidence that defendant had produced the vehicle’s registration from the glove compartment at the officer’s request and that a subsequent check had revealed no stolen vehicle reports. In the absence of contrary proof, the evidence was sufficient to establish defendant’s standing to challenge the seizure and search of a bag that was resting between him and the driver on the front seat of the car. 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. Moreover, the fact that the evidence may have been introduced in hearsay form does not render it objectionable, since CPL 710.60 (4) authorizes the use of hearsay at suppression hearings.
Having concluded that defendant’s standing was sufficiently established, we need note only that we find no reason to disturb the Appellate Division’s finding that the officer had neither the driver’s consent to nor an adequate constitutional predicate for the seizure and search of the bag (see, People v King, 61 NY2d 969, 971; People v Krom, 61 NY2d 187, 196; People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470). Thus, the officer’s observation of the empty glossine envelopes inside a box contained in the bag was unauthorized and cannot be used as a justification for defendant’s arrest and the subsequent search of defendant’s person. Accordingly, the cocaine the officer found as a result of that search was properly suppressed.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.