a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

In an opinion released last week [State v. Davis], the CT Supreme Court rejected the automatic standing rule. The automatic standing rule says that an individual has standing to challenge the Constitutionality of a search, even if he does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject of the search, if he was legitimately on the searched premises or was charged with an offense of which possession of the seized item is an element.

SCOTUS rejected the “automatic standing” rule in US v. Salvucci, but the defendant here was asking the CT court to hold that the state constitution afforded greater protection than the Federal one.

The court then engages in a lengthy Geisler analysis and concludes that “effects” and “possessions” are one and the same; no dicta or holding of the court has suggested adoption of the “automatic standing” doctrine; Federal precedent clearly favors the state; sister state decisions also favor the state; no historical considerations and finally, that policy and sociological considerations favor the state (!!).

So the bottom line is that the person challenging the search has to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject of the search. The Courant article provides some examples:

Under the stricter rule adopted by the state Supreme Court, the owner of a motor vehicle could challenge the validity of a search of the vehicle, while his or her passengers could not.

If you were a guest at someone’s home, the homeowners could challenge a search of the premises and seizure of items whereas you, as a guest and not an inhabitant of the home, would not have standing to challenge the seizure of the briefcase or bong you brought along with you.

I guess to most of you, this is no big deal, but this was an undecided question for a while here in CT and now we’ll have to stick to the narrow Federal standard. Boo.