support@bluetogold.com
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
RESEARCH
Salvucci and Zackular were charged with unlawful possession of stolen mail. Police officers used a warrant to search an apartment rented by Zackular’s mother. The officers found twelve checks that formed the basis of the indictment. Salvucci and Zackular moved to suppress the checks on the ground that the affidavit supporting the application for the search warrant did not establish probable cause.
Whether the defendants had standing to object to the search of the apartment?
No. The defendants may claim the benefits of the exclusionary rule only if the government has violated their Fourth Amendment rights.
Legal possession of a seized good is not a perfect substitute for determining whether the owner had a Fourth Amendment interest. Property ownership is only one factor to be considered in determining whether an individual has a Fourth Amendment right. Possession of a good may not be used as a substitute for a factual finding that the owner had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.
448 U.S. 83, 100 S. Ct. 2547 (1980)
© Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved
