Court Opinion

ID: 9655073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:59:35.577482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:15.919953
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(concurring). I concur wholeheartedly in Judge Riley’s opinion. Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128; 99 S Ct 421; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978), and United States v Salvucci, 488 US 83; 100 S Ct 2547; 65 L Ed 2d 619 (1980), are landmarks of unfortunate and backward jurisprudence. The present membership of the United States Supreme Court has persistently manifested an attitude of callous indifference toward enforcement of the Fourth Amendment; consequently, state courts have the duty to halt the steady erosion of this bulwark against tyranny.
I write separately in order to declare that I erred in joining Judge Allen’s opinion in People v Kramer, 108 Mich App 240; 310 NW2d 347 (1981). In Kramer, the defendant contended that the trial court had erred by admitting evidence obtained in violation of the United States and Michigan Constitutions. The Kramer Court correctly concluded that the defendant had no standing under the federal constitution (as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court) to attack the admission of the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds; however, the Kramer Court erroneously failed to address the defendant’s claim that the evidence was inadmissible under the Michigan Constitution. The Kramer Court cited only federal cases in support of its holding that the defendant lacked standing to bring a Fourth Amendment claim.
*378To the extent that Kramer stands for the proposition that the "automatic standing” rule is no longer good law in Michigan, I hereby repudiate it.