Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Darren McCALL, appellant.
Appeals by the defendant from four judgments of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), all rendered February 25, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminally using drug paraphernalia in the first degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree under Indictment No. 97–00030, upon a jury verdict, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 97–00153, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 97–00239, and robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 97–00135, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeal from the judgment under Indictment No. 97–00030 brings up for review the denial (Meehan, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that there was no probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant for the subject premises. In response, the People contend that the defendant lacks standing to challenge the search warrant. Although the People raise this argument for the first time on appeal, their doing so is not improper since it was the defendant's burden to establish, in the first instance, standing to challenge the search warrant (see People v. Anderson, 306 A.D.2d 536, 761 N.Y.S.2d 855; People v. Myers, 303 A.D.2d 139, 142, 758 N.Y.S.2d 68; People v. Guo Yan Zheng, 266 A.D.2d 471, 698 N.Y.S.2d 533). Here, the evidence demonstrated that the defendant was only a casual visitor to the premises searched, and therefore, he lacked standing to challenge the search warrant, since he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises (see People v. Ramirez–Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 108, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207; People v. Ortiz, 83 N.Y.2d 840, 842–843, 611 N.Y.S.2d 500, 633 N.E.2d 1104; People v. Gonzalez, 45 A.D.3d 696, 845 N.Y.S.2d 817; People v. Myers, 303 A.D.2d at 142, 758 N.Y.S.2d 68; People v. Abreu, 239 A.D.2d 424, 657 N.Y.S.2d 750; People v. Melendez, 160 A.D.2d 739, 739, 553 N.Y.S.2d 808).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 1998-02794, 1998-02449, 1998-02793, 97 /135, 97 /30, 97 /153, 97 /239, 1998-02923
Decided: May 13, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)