Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

PEOPLE v. DRAKES

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Aug 12, 1991

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant was not charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance under a statutory presumption (see, Penal Law ยง 220.25), it follows that he did not have automatic standing to challenge the search of the livery cab in which he was a passenger (see, People v Wesley, 73 N.Y.2d 351; People v McCary, 173 A.D.2d 856; People v Metz, 168 A.D.2d 515; People v Castellar, 159 A.D.2d 312). The rule of People v Millan ( 69 N.Y.2d 514), relied upon by the defendant, applies only in cases where the prosecution has charged the defendant with possession of contraband based upon a statutory presumption (see, People v Wesley, supra). Since the defendant did not prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle which was searched, the hearing court properly concluded that he lacked standing. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.