NY: State’s failure to raise standing in trial court is waiver of the issue

The state’s failure to raise standing in the trial court means that it cannot raise the issue on appeal for the first time. Three of N.Y.’s four appellate courts have held otherwise, and their cases are disapproved as contrary to a 1987 case of this court. People v Hunter, 2011 NY Slip Op 4542, 17 N.Y.3d 725, 950 N.E.2d 137, 926 N.Y.S.2d 401 (2011):

It is well settled that a defendant seeking suppression of evidence obtained as the result of an alleged illegal search must prove standing to challenge the search (see People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99, 108, 666 N.E.2d 207, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502 [1996]). At issue in this appeal is the related question of whether the People must timely object to a defendant’s failure to prove standing in order to preserve that issue for appellate review. We previously answered this question in the affirmative in People v Stith (69 NY2d 313, 506 N.E.2d 911, 514 N.Y.S.2d 201 [1987]), and reiterate that holding today.

The facts that defendant contended were omitted from the affidavit for the search warrant did not undermine probable cause at all. State v. Wolfe, 344 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. App. 2011)*:

Defendant’s list of “omitted” facts amount to nothing more than a general attack on the reliability of the information Cox provided to police. Any such concerns about Cox’s credibility, however, were alleviated by the fact that police found physical evidence relating to the crime at a location described by Cox in her interview prior to the warrants being issued. Deputy Bowling’s failure to mention the immunity agreement did not make his affidavit misleading.