People v. Castrechino

105 A.D.2d 1089, 482 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21177
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 7, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 1089 (People v. Castrechino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Castrechino, 105 A.D.2d 1089, 482 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Monroe County Court for a suppression hearing. Memorandum: Defendant was charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when the automobile in which he was a passenger was stopped and searched by police who found a loaded .38 caliber handgun in the trunk. His pretrial motion to suppress was denied by the suppression court, without a hearing, on the ground that he lacked standing. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted as charged. Although the “automatic standing” rule has been abrogated (United States v Salvucci, 448 US 83; People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160), a person charged with a possessory crime is entitled to the constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures when he can demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the invaded place (United States v Salvucci, supra, p 93; People v Ponder, supra, p 166). The record indicates that the lawful owner of the automobile had entrusted it to defendant’s possession several days previously for needed repairs. As a garageman or repairman, defendant had lawful possession of the car (cf. People v Weeden, 89 AD2d 814) so as to give him a reasonable expectation of privacy (see People v Robinson, 121 Misc 2d 267, 269-270). Accordingly, defendant has standing to contest the search and seizure and denial of the motion to suppress without a hearing was error. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J., at trial; Kennedy, J., on motion to suppress — possession of weapon, third degree.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and O’Donnell, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Wesley
538 N.E.2d 76 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. Castrechino
112 A.D.2d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Wilt
105 A.D.2d 1089 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 A.D.2d 1089, 482 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-castrechino-nyappdiv-1984.