People v Muller

[*1] People v Muller 2020 NY Slip Op 50073(U) Decided on January 24, 2020 Supreme Court, Nassau County Sturim, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 24, 2020
Supreme Court, Nassau County

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,

against

Jeannie Muller, Defendant.



SCI NO. 1044N-19



Madeline Singas

District Attorney

Nassau County

Mineola, NY 11501

By: ADA Alexander DePalo

Legal Aid Society of Nassau County

40 Main Street

Hempstead, NY

By: Colleen Baktis, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant
Howard E. Sturim, J.

The defendant seeks suppression of evidence obtained by police as the result of the search of a vehicle following her arrest for driving while intoxicated. In the alternative she seeks a Mapp/Dunaway hearing.

On January 11, 2019, the State Police responded to a call for a hit and run accident on the Meadowbrook State Parkway. Upon arrival, a state trooper observed an unoccupied damaged grey minivan stopped on the side of the parkway. The defendant was observed 500 feet away from the vehicle. Defendant denied that she was the operator of the vehicle, and later stated to police in sum and substance that she had been a passenger in the vehicle. The minivan was unlocked, and a search of the interior of the vehicle revealed a piece of mail bearing the defendant's name. After an investigation conducted by the State Police, Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated. After the arrest, the state police obtained and executed a search [*2]warrant and found a hair in the vehicle which matched the defendant's DNA profile.

Unless the accused alleges facts that demonstrate standing to challenge the search or seizure, there is no legal basis for suppression, and thus no need for a hearing. A defendant seeking to establish standing must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. People v. Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 540 N.Y.S.2d 757 (1989).

A mere passenger lacks standing to challenge the search of a vehicle where they have not demonstrated a legitimate expectation of privacy. Matter of Tyheem W., 91 AD3d 964 (2nd Dept. 2012). Even the occasional use of a motor vehicle does not give rise to a legitimate expectation of privacy. People v. Cacioppo, 479 N.Y.S.2d 264 (2nd Dept., 1984). Here, the defendant does not assert that she occasionally uses the vehicle. In this case, the defendant claims a privacy interest in a vehicle in which she contends she was previously a passenger. The defendant does not allege that she ever maintained dominion and control over the subject vehicle. She denied operating the vehicle, and only after being confronted with a piece of mail addressed to her found in the vehicle did she tell the troopers that she was a passenger in the vehicle. In addition, she was found 500 feet away from the vehicle, it was unlocked, and the defendant was not in possession of keys to the vehicle.

While the defendant rejects the People's contention that she operated the vehicle and subsequently abandoned it, she has not presented sufficient factual allegations to demonstrate that she has standing to contest the search of the vehicle. As such, this court need not reach the issue of abandonment raised by the People. Accordingly, the defendant's motion for a Mapp/Dunaway hearing is denied. A Huntley hearing, as stipulated to by the parties, will be held prior to trial at a date selected by the court.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

Dated: January 24, 2020

Mineola, NY

HOWARD E. STURIM, A.J.S.C.