Court Opinion

ID: 9938245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:02:50.425789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:50.582951
License: Public Domain

Extended Opinion
I approach Issue I from a different perspective than the foregoing opinion.
This is a companion case to Aubrey Lee Robinson v. State,428 So.2d 148 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982), released this date. The search and seizure issue in both cases arose out of the same facts.
The law is well settled that persons charged with a crime may claim the benefits of the exclusionary rule only upon proper showing that (1) they had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched, and (2) the search was illegal.
As I view it, the issue of "standing" is the threshold which one must cross before arriving at the question of the legality or illegality of the search.
For the reasons pointed out in Robinson, supra, the appellant in this case, in my view, lacked standing to assert Fourth Amendment violations. Such lack of standing pretermits the issue of the legality of the search.
Due to lack of standing, the trial court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress. This is the same result obtained in the foregoing opinion.
DeCARLO and BOWEN, JJ., concur in the Extended Opinion.