issue at the suppression hearing in New York

2021Footnote 2: Although defendant contends that the People failed to establish the reliability or credibility of the identifying witnesses in violation of the Aquilar-Spineli test, this argument is unpreserved for our review as defendant did not raise this issue at the suppression hearing ( see People v Baptista , 130 AD3d 1541 , 1543 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 991 [2016]).

2001The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that the failure of the police to advise him, an Egyptian national, of his right to consular notification pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires suppression of his post-arrest statements, as he did not raise this issue at the suppression hearing or trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Johnson, 51 NY2d 986 ; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 ; also see, United States v Ademaj, 170 F3d 58, 67-68 , cert denied 528 US 887 ).

2001The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that the failure of the police to advise him, an Egyptian national, of his right to consular notification pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires suppression of his post-arrest statements, as he did not raise this issue at the suppression hearing or trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Johnson, 51 NY2d 986 ; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 ; also see, United States v Ademaj, 170 F3d 58, 67-68 , cert denied 528 US 887 ).

2001The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that the failure of the police to advise him, an Egyptian national, of his right to consular notification pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires suppression of his post-arrest statements, as he did not raise this issue at the suppression hearing or trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Johnson, 51 NY2d 986 ; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 ; also see, United States v Ademaj, 170 F3d 58, 67-68 , cert denied 528 US 887 ).

2001The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that the failure of the police to advise him, an Egyptian national, of his right to consular notification pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires suppression of his post-arrest statements, as he did not raise this issue at the suppression hearing or trial (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Johnson, 51 NY2d 986 ; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 ; also see, United States v Ademaj, 170 F3d 58, 67-68 , cert denied 528 US 887 ).

1999In any event, the defendant correctly conceded that he lacked standing to raise an issue as to the violation of the buyer’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (see, People v Henley, 53 NY2d 403, 407 ; People v Aguirre, 220 AD2d 438 ; People v Irby, 162 AD2d 714, 715 ).

1999In any event, the defendant correctly conceded that he lacked standing to raise an issue as to the violation of the buyer’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (see, People v Henley, 53 NY2d 403, 407 ; People v Aguirre, 220 AD2d 438 ; People v Irby, 162 AD2d 714, 715 ).

1999This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant never raised this issue at the suppression hearing (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cea, 237 AD2d 617 ).

1999In any event, the defendant correctly conceded that he lacked standing to raise an issue as to the violation of the buyer’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (see, People v Henley, 53 NY2d 403, 407 ; People v Aguirre, 220 AD2d 438 ; People v Irby, 162 AD2d 714, 715 ).

1992The defendant’s contention that the People were required to present the testimony of the complaining witness at the Wade hearing is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to raise this issue at the suppression hearing (see, People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887 ).

1989While the defendant did not raise the issue at the suppression hearing, it can be heard for the first time on appeal (see, People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773 ).

1985The issue at the suppression hearing was not whether the license plates in question were or were not “out on the street two weeks earlier”, as alleged by counsel in his proffer, but whether Detective Carman acted reasonably in light of all the facts and circumstances, including the information given to him by his fellow members of the Auto Larceny Recovery Team (see People v Finlayson, 76 AD2d 670 , application for lv to app den 51 NY2d 1011 , cert den 450 US 931 ).

1985The issue at the suppression hearing was not whether the license plates in question were or were not “out on the street two weeks earlier”, as alleged by counsel in his proffer, but whether Detective Carman acted reasonably in light of all the facts and circumstances, including the information given to him by his fellow members of the Auto Larceny Recovery Team (see People v Finlayson, 76 AD2d 670 , application for lv to app den 51 NY2d 1011 , cert den 450 US 931 ).

1984For this reason, an arrest need not be based upon evidence which would be competent at trial (Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 172-173 ; People v Coffey, 12 NY2d 443, 452 , cert den 376 US 916 ; 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 3.2) and even hearsay inadmissible at the trial may be admitted at the suppression hearing (CPL 710.60, subd 4).

1984But when an arrest is based upon a citizen’s accusation of guilt, the issue at the suppression hearing is not factual guilt but whether the police were entitled to rely upon the accusation to justify their conduct (People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231 ; People v West, 44 NY2d 656 ).

1984For this reason, an arrest need not be based upon evidence which would be competent at trial (Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 172-173 ; People v Coffey, 12 NY2d 443, 452 , cert den 376 US 916 ; 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 3.2) and even hearsay inadmissible at the trial may be admitted at the suppression hearing (CPL 710.60, subd 4).

1984For this reason, an arrest need not be based upon evidence which would be competent at trial (Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 172-173 ; People v Coffey, 12 NY2d 443, 452 , cert den 376 US 916 ; 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 3.2) and even hearsay inadmissible at the trial may be admitted at the suppression hearing (CPL 710.60, subd 4).

1984But when an arrest is based upon a citizen’s accusation of guilt, the issue at the suppression hearing is not factual guilt but whether the police were entitled to rely upon the accusation to justify their conduct (People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231 ; People v West, 44 NY2d 656 ).

1977In People v Epstein ( 47 AD2d 661 ), where the facts were similar to those here insofar as the issuance of the warrant and failure to raise the issue at the suppression hearing were concerned, the court reversed the judgment relying upon People v Nicometi (supra).

1977In People v Epstein ( 47 AD2d 661 ), where the facts were similar to those here insofar as the issuance of the warrant and failure to raise the issue at the suppression hearing were concerned, the court reversed the judgment relying upon People v Nicometi (supra).