Standing or “Adequate Interest.”
- General rule. To raise a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the accused’s own constitutional rights must have been violated; he cannot vicariously claim Fourth Amendment violations of the rights of others.
- Rakas v. Illinois , 439 U.S. 128, 134 (1978). Police seized sawed-off shotgun and ammunition in illegal search of car. Only owner was allowed to challenge admissibility of evidence seized. Defendant passenger lacked standing to make same challenge.
- United States v. Padilla , 508 U.S. 77 (1993). Accused lacked standing to challenge search of auto containing drugs driven by a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy, despite accused’s supervisory control over auto.
- But see Brendlin v. California , 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007). When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and may challenge the stop’s constitutionality.
- Lack of standing is often analyzed as lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy. See United States v. Padilla
, 508 U.S. 77 (1993) and United States v. Salazar , 44 M.J. 464 (C.A.A.F. 1996).