People v. Ramirez-Portoreal - 88 N.Y.2d 99, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207 (1996)

Rule:

Standing to seek suppression of evidence requires the defendant to establish, by the defendant's own evidence or by relying on the people's evidence, that he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or item that was searched. The suppression court must identify the object of the defendant's expectation of privacy, determine whether the defendant exhibited an expectation of privacy in it, and evaluate whether the circumstances would lead society to regard the defendant's expectation as reasonable. If the court determines that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the item searched, standing to challenge the legality of the police conduct is established.

Facts:

In three unrelated cases, defendants had hidden or abandoned drugs in public places, and the police subsequently seized these drugs. In each of the cases, defendants challenged the legality of the seizure. Following separate rulings by the appellate courts in each of the cases, the court consolidated the appeals in order to address whether the defendants had standing to challenge the legality of such seizures and whether the alleged "abandonment" of the property affected their right to do so. 

Issue:

Does a defendant have standing to challenge the legality of the police conduct when there is an alleged "abandonment" of the property?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

Upon consideration, the court reversed the appellate court rulings in each of the cases. Specifically, the court held that standing to seek suppression of evidence required defendants to establish, by their own evidence or by relying on the people's evidence, that they had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or item that was searched. The court then concluded that property was deemed abandoned when the expectation of privacy in the object or place searched was given up by voluntarily and knowingly discarding the property, and that the result was a waiver of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.