LaFontaine rule in New York

2018We construe the latter to include the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument, inasmuch as "the question of the State's inherent authority to prosecute does not need to be raised or preserved at trial in order to be reviewed on appeal," and, "[a]s a result, no LaFontaine error [is] possible" ( People v Concepcion , 17 NY3d 192 , 199 [2011]; see also People v Casey , 95 NY2d 354, 366 [2000]).

2013This case confirms my belief that the LaFontaine rule is essentially unworkable (see Concepcion, 17 NY3d at 201-207 [Smith, J., dissenting]).

2025However, pursuant to the LaFontaine rule, the Court of Appeals held that this Court improperly decided the legal standard for the search before County Court had done so, and remitted the case to County Court to rule upon the correct standard, whether that standard was met and, if not, whether the drugs were abandoned under the law ( id . at 199; see CPL 470.35 [1]; People v LaFontaine , 92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998]).

2025However, pursuant to the LaFontaine rule, the Court of Appeals held that this Court improperly decided the legal standard for the search before County Court had done so, and remitted the case to County Court to rule upon the correct standard, whether that standard was met and, if not, whether the drugs were abandoned under the law ( id . at 199; see CPL 470.35 [1]; People v LaFontaine , 92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998]).

2024Concepcion . . . when it relies on the record to discern the unarticulated predicate for the trial court's evidentiary ruling"]; People v Garrett , 23 NY3d 878 , 885 n 2 [2014] [distinguishing between "separate alternative grounds for decision" which the LaFontaine rule covers and components of a "single multipronged legal ruling" which it does not]; id. at 899 [Smith, J., concurring] [endorsing the Garrett "majority's limitation of the rule"]).

2024Concepcion . . . when it relies on the record to discern the unarticulated predicate for the trial court's evidentiary ruling"]; People v Garrett , 23 NY3d 878 , 885 n 2 [2014] [distinguishing between "separate alternative grounds for decision" which the LaFontaine rule covers and components of a "single multipronged legal ruling" which it does not]; id. at 899 [Smith, J., concurring] [endorsing the Garrett "majority's limitation of the rule"]).

2024If Supreme Court had considered and credited the PCP testimony, the denial of the suppression motion would have been correct ( see People v Carmona , 149 AD3d 670 , 671 [1st Dept 2017] [police officer's [*11]search of the defendant was justified when, among other things, the officer "detected the odor of PCP"], lv denied 29 NY3d 1090 [2017]; People v Darby , 263 AD2d 112, 114 [1st Dept 2000] ["the odor (of PCP) was enough, when combined with the officers' other observations and knowledge, to give the officers probable cause for stopping and searching defendant"], lv denied 95 NY2d 795 [2000];

2024If Supreme Court had considered and credited the PCP testimony, the denial of the suppression motion would have been correct ( see People v Carmona , 149 AD3d 670 , 671 [1st Dept 2017] [police officer's [*11]search of the defendant was justified when, among other things, the officer "detected the odor of PCP"], lv denied 29 NY3d 1090 [2017]; People v Darby , 263 AD2d 112, 114 [1st Dept 2000] ["the odor (of PCP) was enough, when combined with the officers' other observations and knowledge, to give the officers probable cause for stopping and searching defendant"], lv denied 95 NY2d 795 [2000];

2024If Supreme Court had considered and credited the PCP testimony, the denial of the suppression motion would have been correct ( see People v Carmona , 149 AD3d 670 , 671 [1st Dept 2017] [police officer's [*11]search of the defendant was justified when, among other things, the officer "detected the odor of PCP"], lv denied 29 NY3d 1090 [2017]; People v Darby , 263 AD2d 112, 114 [1st Dept 2000] ["the odor (of PCP) was enough, when combined with the officers' other observations and knowledge, to give the officers probable cause for stopping and searching defendant"], lv denied 95 NY2d 795 [2000];

2023Finally, it is unclear whether County Court’s conclusion that defendant “abandoned” the narcotics during his flight from police was premised on its holding that the canine sniff of defendant was not a search and was “perfectly acceptable.” Because abandonment analysis turns largely on whether the law enforcement conduct preceding the purported abandonment was lawful or unlawful (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 110 [1996]; People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 402 [1979]), consideration of this issue potentially raises another LaFontaine issue and must also be referred back to County Court.

2023Finally, it is unclear whether County Court’s conclusion that defendant “abandoned” the narcotics during his flight from police was premised on its holding that the canine sniff of defendant was not a search and was “perfectly acceptable.” Because abandonment analysis turns largely on whether the law enforcement conduct preceding the purported abandonment was lawful or unlawful (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 110 [1996]; People v Boodle, 47 NY2d 398, 402 [1979]), consideration of this issue potentially raises another LaFontaine issue and must also be referred back to County Court.

2018We construe the latter to include the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument, inasmuch as "the question of the State's inherent authority to prosecute does not need to be raised or preserved at trial in order to be reviewed on appeal," and, "[a]s a result, no LaFontaine error [is] possible" ( People v Concepcion , 17 NY3d 192 , 199 [2011]; see also People v Casey , 95 NY2d 354, 366 [2000]).

2017Although the judicial hearing officer’s decision may have been inartfully worded, the fair import of his finding that the officers had a “credible reason” to stop the defendant is that the encounter at issue was in fact a level one request for information (see People *436 v Nicholson, 26 NY3d 813, 825 [2016] [noting that an appellate court is not prohibited “from considering the record and the proffer colloquy with counsel to understand the context of the trial court’s ultimate determination”]; People v Garrett, 23 NY3d 878 , 885 n 2 [2014]).