Court Opinion

ID: 9544578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:57:16.148374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:14.420801
License: Public Domain

STRUCKMEYER, Chief Justice,
dissent-
ing.
I dissent, believing that this search does not come within the purview of United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980), and Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 114, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980). If we assume that Morrow was not the owner of the attache case because he disclaimed ownership, still he had a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy by reason of his possessory interest. This interest was protected by the United States Constitution, Amendment 4. I would reverse.