NCJ Number
18143
Journal
Mississippi Law Journal Volume: 46 Issue: 1 Dated: (WINTER 1975) Pages: 147-168
Date Published
1975
Length
22 pages
Annotation
THIS COMMENT DISCUSSES THE PRECEDENTS AND POLICIES WHICH UNDERLIE THE RIGHT OF A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL TO RAISE CERTAIN ISSUES BEFORE A COURT OF LAW.
Abstract
IN ITS SEARCH AND SEIZURE CONTEXT, THE STANDING DOCTRINE REQUIRES A DEFENDANT TO ESTABLISH THAT HE HAS SUFFERED PERSONAL, FINANCIAL, OR SOME OTHER DIRECT INJURY FROM THE ILLEGAL CONDUCT. SEVERAL SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ARE CITED IN A DISCUSSION OF THE COURT'S PARTIAL REASSESSMENT OF THE STANDING DOCTRINE AND ITS REQUIREMENTS FOR EITHER A POSSESSORY OR A PROPRIETARY INTEREST. SEPARATE RULINGS HELD THAT STANDING WOULD BE GRANTED, REGARDLESS OF THESE TWO CRITERIA, WHERE: 1) THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WERE CARRIED OUT WITH THE OBJECTS TO BE SEIZED AND THE IDENTITY OF THE POSSESSOR IN MIND, WHEN PROOF OF POSSESSION IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT, WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS LEGITIMATELY ON THE PREMISES SEARCHED, AND WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL'S REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY HAD BEEN VIOLATED. ALSO DISCUSSED ARE THE LIMITS TO AUTOMATIC STANDING AND THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT CAN BE APPLIED. AUTOMATIC STANDING IS ENCOUNTERED IN SITUATIONS INVOLVING CONTRABAND PER SE, DERIVATIVE CONTRABAND, FRUITS OF A THEFT, AND EVIDENTIARY ITEMS. EVEN THOUGH POSSESSION IS THE CENTRAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE, STANDING MAY BE DENIED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT ON THE PREMISES AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH, BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT EITHER DENIED OR FAILED TO ALLEGE ANY INTEREST IN THE SEIZED OBJECTS, OR BECAUSE THE OBJECTS HAD BEEN ABANDONED. TWO OTHER STANDING CONSIDERATIONS ARE ALSO DISCUSSED: WIRETAPPING OR ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND DERIVATIVE STANDING BASED ON THE VIOLATION OF SOMEONE ELSE'S FIFTH OR SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE COURTS' ATTEMPTS TO BALANCE THE COMPETING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS OF THE STANDING DOCTRINE AND EXCLUSIONARY RULE HAVE RESULTED IN A CONFUSING AND SOMETIMES INHERENTLY CONTRADICTORY BODY OF LAW, SINCE UNDER THE PRESENT RULES, THE POLICE ARE NOT DETERRED FROM MAKING AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH WHICH WILL INVADE AN INNOCENT MAN'S PRIVACY. NEITHER THE INNOCENT VICTIM OF THE SEARCH NOR THE INTENDED TARGET HAVE STANDING TO OBJECT. PRESENT STANDING RULES DO, HOWEVER, DETER THE POLICE FROM MAKING AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH OF PAPERS OF A MAN SUSPECTED OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. HE CONTENDS THAT BOTH THE CONFUSION AND THE CONTRADICTIONS WOULD BE ALLEVIATED IF THE COURTS WOULD GRANT STANDING TO 'THE TARGET OF THE SEARCH' IN ALL CASES, INCLUDING PERHAPS A BLANKET PROSCRIPTION IN WIRETAP CASES. THIS APPROACH WOULD GRANT 'DERIVATIVE' STANDING TO THOSE UPON WHOM THE SEARCH WAS FOCUSED BUT WOULD DENY IT TO MERE VICTIMS OF A SEARCH DIRECTED AT SOMEONE ELSE. IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS WHO WERE THE INTENDED OBJECTS OF THE POLICE SEARCH. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)