defendant seeking challenge in New York

2010Next, “a defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure . . . [is] required to demonstrate a personal legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises” (People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 357 [1989]).

2009While under the New York State Constitution, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a global positioning system (hereinafter GFS) tracking device to monitor an individual’s whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause (see People v Weaver, 12 NY3d 433, 447 [2009]), reversal is not warranted in this case based on the failure of the police to obtain a warrant before installing a GPS to a vehicle not owned by the defendant. “[A]s a matter of State constitutional law, a defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure [cannot] rest upon the fact that

2009While under the New York State Constitution, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a global positioning system (hereinafter GFS) tracking device to monitor an individual’s whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause (see People v Weaver, 12 NY3d 433, 447 [2009]), reversal is not warranted in this case based on the failure of the police to obtain a warrant before installing a GPS to a vehicle not owned by the defendant. “[A]s a matter of State constitutional law, a defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure [cannot] rest upon the fact that

1996It is well settled that a defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched (see, People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351 ; People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160 ).

2009While under the New York State Constitution, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a global positioning system (hereinafter GFS) tracking device to monitor an individual’s whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause (see People v Weaver, 12 NY3d 433, 447 [2009]), reversal is not warranted in this case based on the failure of the police to obtain a warrant before installing a GPS to a vehicle not owned by the defendant. “[A]s a matter of State constitutional law, a defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure [cannot] rest upon the fact that

1996While a passenger of an automobile possesses standing to challenge the stop of a car as unlawful (see, People v Dawson, 115 AD2d 611 ), no challenge has been raised to the legitimacy of the stop in this case and as a mere passenger, the defendant otherwise failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy necessary for him to have standing to contest the search of the lawfully stopped vehicle (see, Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; People v Reynolds, 216 AD2d 883 ; People v Finley, 145 AD2d 434 ).

2009While under the New York State Constitution, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a global positioning system (hereinafter GFS) tracking device to monitor an individual’s whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause (see People v Weaver, 12 NY3d 433, 447 [2009]), reversal is not warranted in this case based on the failure of the police to obtain a warrant before installing a GPS to a vehicle not owned by the defendant. “[A]s a matter of State constitutional law, a defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure [cannot] rest upon the fact that

2005Moreover, with regard to the exclusion of a non-family member described as defendant’s “closest friend,” the Court of Appeals has recently held that “[o]nce the prosecution has met the burden of showing that a courtroom must be closed to the general public in order to protect a witness’s safety, the burden should shift to the defendant seeking an exception to the closure to show that a proposed spectator is linked to him by some tie of more significance than ordinary friendship” (People v Nazario, 4 NY3d 70, 74 [2005]).

2000“A defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure cannot rest upon the fact that the People have charged him with constructive possession of contraband, but must demonstrate that the search violated a personal legitimate expectation of privacy” (People v Cedeno, 193 AD2d 540, 541 , lv denied 82 NY2d 715 , citing People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 357-359 ).

2000Defendant made no such demonstration with respect to the search of codefendant (see, People v Cedeno, supra, at 541).

1989(People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160, 165 ; see also, People v Hunter, 55 NY2d 930 .) Ponder established that, as a matter of State constitutional law, a defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure could not rest upon the fact that the People had charged possession, but was required to demonstrate a personal legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises.