Court Opinion

ID: 9715782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:14:25.107237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:37.874346
License: Public Domain

Brock, J.
(Dissenting on the automatic standing issue, but agreeing with Batchelder, J. and the Chief Justice that the defendants’ convictions must be set aside.)
I respectfully disagree with the plurality decision that the defendants Settle and Durling have “standing” to challenge the legality of the police search of the “cabin” erected by James Scranton on property owned by his parents.
Neither the fourth amendment to the federal constitution, the language of pt. 1, art. 19 of our State constitution, nor prior decisions of this court following Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960), which has since been overruled by the United States Supreme Court, compel such a result. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978), and United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (1980).
The test which should be employed in determining whether or not a particular defendant has standing to assert violations of the search and seizure provisions of our constitution, thereby invoking for himself the benefits of the exclusionary rule, is: does the conduct which the defendant challenges involve an intrusion into his legitimate expectations of privacy with reference to the items seized and the place searched, thus violating his constitutional rights. See United States v. Salvucci, supra at 93.
The record before us and the facts found by the trial court in this matter support its determination that the defendants Settle and Durling had no standing to challenge the legality of the search of the Scranton cabin. Accordingly, I would affirm its decision to ■admit into evidence the items found in the cabin.
Because, however, three members of this court are of the opinion that the defendants have “standing” to contest the legality of the search and seizure in this matter and neither the legality of the search and seizure nor “good-faith” issues were properly before the court on this appeal, I reluctantly agree with my brothers Batch-*223elder and the Chief Justice that defendants’ convictions must be set aside.
Bois, J.
I am unalterably opposed to the automatic standing rule. In addition, I have grave reservations as to the vitality of the exclusionary rule and would be in favor of abolishing it. However, being bound by the federal decisions recognizing the exclusionary rule, I join with my Brother Brock in holding that on the facts of the present case, the defendants did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises involved.

Reversed and remanded.