Standing or “Adequate Interest.”

  1. 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  2. 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).
Scroll to Top