People at the suppression hearing in New York

2022People v Nieves , 67 NY2d at 135-136 ; People v Dodt , 61 NY2d 408, 416 ; People v Benbow , 193 AD3d 869, 872-873 ; People v Geddes-Kelly , 163 AD3d at 717; People v Thompson , 118 AD3d 922, 924 ; People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ).

1989The action of the police may not be upheld on a theory not argued by the People before the suppression court (People v Johnson, 64 NY2d 617, 619, n 2 ; People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 416 ; People v Knapp, 52 NY2d 689, 699 [Jasen, J., concurring]).

2022People v Nieves , 67 NY2d at 135-136 ; People v Dodt , 61 NY2d 408, 416 ; People v Benbow , 193 AD3d 869, 872-873 ; People v Geddes-Kelly , 163 AD3d at 717; People v Thompson , 118 AD3d 922, 924 ; People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ).

2022This Court, as well, prior to Tates , consistently declined to consider, as a ground for affirming the suppression of evidence, a legal theory that was "expressly disclaimed" by the People at the suppression hearing ( People v Garcia , 175 AD3d 1319 , 1321; People v Henagin , 129 AD3d 864, 865 ), or a theory regarding which the People successfully prevented the defendant from eliciting relevant testimony at the hearing ( see People v Laskaris , 82 AD2d 34, 42 ).

2022People v Nieves , 67 NY2d at 135-136 ; People v Dodt , 61 NY2d 408, 416 ; People v Benbow , 193 AD3d 869, 872-873 ; People v Geddes-Kelly , 163 AD3d at 717; People v Thompson , 118 AD3d 922, 924 ; People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ).

2022The narrow reading of Tates advocated by the People is consistent with the approach taken by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, and the Appellate Division, First Department, in comparable cases involving the suppression court's application of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Nichols , 175 AD3d 1117 , 1117-1118; People v Pacifico , 95 AD2d 215, 219 ).

2022The narrow reading of Tates advocated by the People is consistent with the approach taken by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, and the Appellate Division, First Department, in comparable cases involving the suppression court's application of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Nichols , 175 AD3d 1117 , 1117-1118; People v Pacifico , 95 AD2d 215, 219 ).

2022This Court, as well, prior to Tates , consistently declined to consider, as a ground for affirming the suppression of evidence, a legal theory that was "expressly disclaimed" by the People at the suppression hearing ( People v Garcia , 175 AD3d 1319 , 1321; People v Henagin , 129 AD3d 864, 865 ), or a theory regarding which the People successfully prevented the defendant from eliciting relevant testimony at the hearing ( see People v Laskaris , 82 AD2d 34, 42 ).

2022People v Nieves , 67 NY2d at 135-136 ; People v Dodt , 61 NY2d 408, 416 ; People v Benbow , 193 AD3d 869, 872-873 ; People v Geddes-Kelly , 163 AD3d at 717; People v Thompson , 118 AD3d 922, 924 ; People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ).

2022People v Nieves , 67 NY2d at 135-136 ; People v Dodt , 61 NY2d 408, 416 ; People v Benbow , 193 AD3d 869, 872-873 ; People v Geddes-Kelly , 163 AD3d at 717; People v Thompson , 118 AD3d 922, 924 ; People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ).

2020The testimony demonstrated that defendant was visibly upset following the stabbing of his son, was intent on being with his son and directed the allegedly disruptive statements and conduct primarily at the arresting officer, "a party trained to defuse situations involving angry or emotionally distraught persons" ( People v Baker , 20 NY3d at 363 ).

2020In our view, the evidence presented by the People at the suppression hearing fell far short of establishing that the arresting officer had reasonable cause to believe that defendant intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly created a risk thereof ( see People v Baker , 20 NY3d at 363-364 ; compare People v Lepard , 83 AD3d 1214, 1215-1216 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 925 [2012]).

2000The People did not meet their burden of coming forward to show that the arresting detective’s warrantless search of the locked, impounded car fell within the plain view exception, the only theory relied upon by the People at the suppression hearing (see, Arizona v Hicks, 480 US 321 ).

1999The evidence presented by the People at the suppression hearing, including testimony that the complainant accused defendant of having robbed him moments earlier, established probable cause for defendant’s arrest (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d 90, 92 ).

1992The testimony presented by the People at the suppression hearing was not inherently incredible or improbable (People v Benitez, 162 AD2d 100, 101 ), and supports the suppression court’s finding that defendant’s mother voluntarily relinquished the shirt he allegedly wore during the robbery (see generally, People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122, 128-130 ; People v Zimmerman, 101 AD2d 294, 296 ).

1992The testimony presented by the People at the suppression hearing was not inherently incredible or improbable (People v Benitez, 162 AD2d 100, 101 ), and supports the suppression court’s finding that defendant’s mother voluntarily relinquished the shirt he allegedly wore during the robbery (see generally, People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122, 128-130 ; People v Zimmerman, 101 AD2d 294, 296 ).

1992The testimony presented by the People at the suppression hearing was not inherently incredible or improbable (People v Benitez, 162 AD2d 100, 101 ), and supports the suppression court’s finding that defendant’s mother voluntarily relinquished the shirt he allegedly wore during the robbery (see generally, People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122, 128-130 ; People v Zimmerman, 101 AD2d 294, 296 ).

1992In addition, review of denial of suppression must be based exclusively on the evidence that was before the suppression court, notwithstanding that the testimony presented at trial conflicts therewith (People v Rivera, 171 AD2d 560, 561 , lv denied 78 NY2d 973 ).

1991Furthermore, by virtue of their testimony regarding their observations of defendant during the transactions at issue, these witnesses (bank employees to whom defendant had presented the forged checks) each had an independent basis for making an in-court identification (see, People v Timmons, 149 AD2d 746, 747 , lv denied 74 NY2d 748 ).

1991Inasmuch as defendant failed to counter the showing made by the People at the suppression hearing, through the testimony of the police officers who presented the photo arrays to the eyewitnesses, that the pretrial photo identification was appropriate, the People were not required to produce the eyewitnesses at that stage for purposes of establishing an independent basis for identification (see, People v Hemingway, 152 AD2d 818, 819 , lv denied 74 NY2d 810 ).

1990Finally, the People’s reliance on the exigent circumstances doctrine is unavailing because it does not excuse the lack of probable cause (see, People v Burr, 124 AD2d 5, 8 , affd 70 NY2d 354, 360 , cert denied 485 US 989 ).

1990Finally, the People’s reliance on the exigent circumstances doctrine is unavailing because it does not excuse the lack of probable cause (see, People v Burr, 124 AD2d 5, 8 , affd 70 NY2d 354, 360 , cert denied 485 US 989 ).

1990Finally, the People’s reliance on the exigent circumstances doctrine is unavailing because it does not excuse the lack of probable cause (see, People v Burr, 124 AD2d 5, 8 , affd 70 NY2d 354, 360 , cert denied 485 US 989 ).

1989Memorandum: We agree with defendant that the showup identification cannot be upheld pursuant to People v Hicks ( 68 NY2d 234 ) because the only theory advanced by the People at the suppression hearing and on appeal was that probable cause justified an arrest before defendant was taken to the scene for identification.