People v. Ramirez-Portoreal
643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 666 N.E.2d 207 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant has standing to challenge a police search only if they demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or item searched, which requires both a subjective expectation and an objectively reasonable expectation recognized by society; this expectation is waived if property is voluntarily and knowingly discarded, but not if the abandonment is coerced by unlawful police activity, and probable cause for an arrest under the 'fellow officer' rule can be established by circumstantial evidence of communication between officers.
Facts:
- Law enforcement officers were on a drug interdiction assignment at a bus terminal in Albany, observing passengers.
- Defendant Ramirez-Portoreal arrived on a bus from New York City with two companions, carrying a single piece of luggage; after one companion noticed the officers, the three immediately boarded a westbound bus, taking separate seats.
- Ramirez-Portoreal placed his bag in an overhead luggage compartment one row behind his seat and across the aisle from it.
- Officers boarded the bus, identified themselves, and asked passengers for tickets and identification; Ramirez-Portoreal produced a ticket but no ID, denied having any luggage, and denied ownership of the bag he had placed in the rack.
- An undercover officer in Manhattan observed Defendant Sanchez surreptitiously place a package resembling narcotics into the exhaust pipe of a parked van in a drug-prone location, then walked a few feet away but remained in the immediate area.
- Officer Fleming, stationed on a rooftop with Officer Lott, used binoculars to observe Defendant Mims on a sidewalk conducting what appeared to be drug sales (exchanging currency for green-topped vials).
- Fleming saw Mims cross the street, reach into a cardboard box in a trash pile, pull out a paper bag, withdraw items, replace the bag, and return to conduct another apparent drug sale.
- Officers Fleming and Lott then drove to Mims' location.
- Officer Lott detained Mims, while Officer Fleming immediately retrieved the paper bag from the trash pile and found 18 green-capped vials of crack cocaine inside.
Procedural Posture:
- In People v. Ramirez-Portoreal, the County Court (trial court) granted Ramirez-Portoreal’s motion to suppress physical evidence, finding he had standing, had not abandoned the bag, and police conduct was unlawful.
- The Appellate Division reversed the County Court’s order, concluding that Ramirez-Portoreal lacked standing because he showed only a possessory interest in the bag and denied ownership.
- In People v. Sanchez, the Criminal Court (trial court) granted Sanchez’s motion to suppress the drugs, finding no abandonment and illegal police conduct, but did not expressly consider standing.
- The Appellate Term affirmed the Criminal Court’s ruling, concluding that Sanchez’s standing was established by his actual possession and proximity to the package, and that police intrusion was unjustified.
- In People v. Mims, the Supreme Court (trial court) granted Mims’ motion to suppress the evidence and dismissed the indictment, finding he had standing, had not abandoned the bag, but Officer Lott lacked probable cause for arrest under the 'fellow officer' rule due to lack of direct communication evidence.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision, holding that Mims had standing and had not abandoned his property, and that the evidence was insufficient to establish Officer Lott’s probable cause for arrest.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant have standing to challenge a search of property based on a legitimate expectation of privacy, particularly when the property is in a public place or ownership is disclaimed, and can probable cause for an arrest be established through circumstantial evidence under the 'fellow officer' rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Simons, J.
No, a defendant does not automatically have standing to challenge a search based solely on a possessory interest, nor is an expectation of privacy in a public, easily accessible location generally considered objectively reasonable by society. Whether a defendant's actions constitute voluntary abandonment depends on the circumstances and is not automatically established by denial of ownership or public placement, but rather by a knowing and purposeful divestment. Yes, probable cause for an arrest under the 'fellow officer' rule can be established by circumstantial evidence of communication or direction between officers. To establish standing to challenge a search, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises or object searched. This requires both a subjective expectation of privacy (did the defendant seek to preserve something as private?) and an objective expectation (does society generally recognize this expectation as reasonable and justifiable?). A mere possessory interest in seized goods is insufficient; a privacy interest in the place or item searched is required. For example, Ramirez-Portoreal's actual and sole possession of a closed bag, placed in an overhead compartment on a bus, evinced a subjective effort to maintain privacy, and society would generally deem an expectation of privacy in personal luggage on a bus reasonable, thus establishing his standing. However, for Sanchez, an expectation of privacy in the tailpipe of a vehicle not owned by him and parked on a busy urban street is not objectively reasonable. Similarly, Mims lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in a paper bag secreted in a trash pile on a city sidewalk, which is readily accessible to the public. Property is deemed abandoned when a legitimate expectation of privacy is voluntarily and knowingly given up by discarding the property. The People bear the burden to establish this waiver. Surrender of control or disclaimer of ownership alone does not always establish a waiver. If abandonment is coerced or precipitated by unlawful police activity, the property may be suppressed as 'fruit of the poisonous tree' under the Boodle analysis, examining whether the relinquishment was a direct consequence of illegality or a calculated decision. Regarding the arrest of Mims, the 'fellow officer' rule allows an arrest to be lawful even if the arresting officer lacks personal knowledge, provided they act upon the direction or communication of a fellow officer who possesses information sufficient to constitute probable cause. While direct evidence of communication is preferable, the court can draw inferences from circumstantial evidence. Here, Officers Fleming and Lott were engaged in a single drug interdiction assignment, were together, and proceeded together to Mims' location where Lott immediately detained Mims. The only inference to be drawn is that Lott was acting at Fleming's direction or upon knowledge shared by Fleming, who had probable cause based on his observations. Therefore, Mims' arrest was lawful, and the seized evidence (from his person) should not be suppressed.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the application of the Fourth Amendment's reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine in public spaces, particularly concerning items potentially disclaimed or hidden by defendants. It firmly establishes that mere possession is not sufficient for standing; rather, a defendant must demonstrate an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. The ruling also clarifies that the concept of 'abandonment' requires a voluntary and knowing relinquishment of privacy, distinct from simply disclaiming ownership, and introduces a 'fruit of the poisonous tree' analysis if abandonment is coerced by unlawful police action. Furthermore, the court expands the practical application of the 'fellow officer' rule by explicitly allowing probable cause to be imputed between officers based on strong circumstantial evidence, even without direct proof of communication, which has broad implications for police team operations and evidence admissibility.
