Opinion ID: 409619
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standing Under The Fourth Amendment

Text: 26 The Fourth Amendment affords protection against the uninvited ear(;) oral statements, if illegally overheard, ... are ... subject to suppression. Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171, 89 S.Ct. 961, 965, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). This suppression remedy, however, can only be invoked in a criminal trial, by the victim of the illegality, to prevent the use of the tainted evidence against him. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347, 354, 94 S.Ct. 613, 619, 622, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. at 171-72, 174, 89 S.Ct. at 965, 967. The reason for these limitations is that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment suppression remedy is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim(,) ... (but) to deter future unlawful police conduct.... United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. at 347, 94 S.Ct. at 619. The rule is premised on a recognition that the need for deterrence and hence the rationale for excluding the evidence are strongest where the Government's unlawful conduct would result in imposition of a criminal sanction on the victim of the search. Id. at 348, 94 S.Ct. at 620. See United States v. Kember, 648 F.2d 1354, 1366-67 (D.C.Cir.1980). 27 In the present case the challenged evidence is not to be used against the nonparty movants. Thus, as noted by the district court, even though the nonparties are allegedly the victims of illegality, they cannot move to suppress the evidence in the defendants' trial on the basis of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Kember, 648 F.2d at 1367.