Recall from the last session that before a court examines whether a Fourth Amendment violation has taken place, we need to determine if that complaining suspect has a “standing” to contest the search – that he or she is not complaining about the violation of someone else’s privacy interest.
Standing is one of the few areas of criminal procedure where the defendant has the burden of proof. That is, the defendant must demonstrate standing to contest the search he or she wishes to challenge – and this needs to be established before addressing the merits of the defendant’s motion to suppress.
Legal Supplement
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978),
The proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure.
U.S. v. Rubio-Rivera, 917 F.2d 1271, (10th Cir. 1990),
A defendant may not challenge an allegedly unlawful search or seizure unless he demonstrates that his own constitutional rights have been violated.
U.S. v. Conway, 73 F.3d 975 (10th Cir. 1995),
Mere physical possession or control of property is not sufficient to establish standing to object to a search of that property.
