Abstract

Since Mapp v. Ohio, the field of law devoted to the rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution has suddenly been thrust upon state practitioners. This field is extremely complex and varied, and the burden placed upon lawyers to become rapidly familiar with this field has. been great. This article is devoted to one small aspect of-the law of search and seizure which is commonly referred to as "standing to object." This part of the law of search and seizure attempts to answer the question "Who has the right to object against the use of illegally seized evidence?"

For years the law has been fairly well settled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution conferred only a personal right, and therefore only the defendant who was also a "victim" of the illegal search and seizure could complain of the admission of illegally seized evidence. The rule is generally stated that before a person is entitled to object to the admission of illegally seized evidence he must claim and show a possessory or proprietary interest in either the property seized or the premises searched. Every federal circuit court has held that the privilege to object is a personal right, and all the states which have decided the issue, with the notable exception of California, have also held that the privilege is personal. The Arizona Supreme Court, although it recently had occasion to discuss the question, has not yet decided whether it will accept or reject the standing requirement.

The United States Supreme Court, in two recent decisions, Jones v. United States, and Wong Sun v. United States, approved the standing requirement. The Jones case greatly liberalized the standing requirement and thereby changed a substantial part of the law pertaining to standing which had previously been set down by the federal circuit courts. Due to the importance of the decision in Jones, the complete rejection of the standing requirement by California, and the lack of precedent in Arizona, it is felt that a detailed discussion of the standing requirement will be of benefit.

How to Cite