Court Opinion

ID: 9573531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:56:31.512382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:33.449054
License: Public Domain

Quinn, J.
The crime that defendant was convicted of and sentenced for and the facts are fully set forth in the dissent. We agree with the resolution of the admissibility of the confession issue as found in that dissent.
The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the search and seizure. Defendant had no standing to challenge the legality of the search and seizure. He was not present at the time of the search and seizure; he had no proprietary and possessory interest in the suitcase and its contents or in the automobile; nor were the suitcase and contents in his possession when seized, Brown v United States, 411 US 223; 93 S Ct 1565; 36 L Ed 2d 208 (1973).
Affirmed.
J. H. Gillis, P. J., concurred.