About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

40 Drake L. Rev. 603 (1991)
Fourth Amendment Standing after Katz, Iowa Cases Analyzed

handle is hein.journals/drklr40 and id is 613 raw text is: FOURTH AMENDMENT STANDING AFTER KATZ, IOWA CASES ANALYZED TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................................ 603 II. The Fourth Amendment and the Reasonable Expectation of P rivacy ..................... .......................................... 604 III. Standing and Persons not Legitimately on the Premises ........ 610 IV . C onclusion ............................................................. 613 I. INTRODUCTION In 1967, the United States Supreme Court formulated a new analysis for determining whether an individual could raise the claim that his rights under the fourth amendment had been violated.1 Specifically, protection of the fourth amendment is now determined by reference to a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.2 Due to the myriad of situations in which the fourth amendment may be implicated, cases attempting to define reasonable expectation of privacy have been numerous, confusing, and sometimes contradictory. This Note analyzes Iowa decisions regarding the issue of fourth amendment standing to determine the extent to which Iowa decisions are consistent with those of the federal courts. First, it is necessary to explain some of the general principles in- volved in a fourth amendment standing question. A typical fourth amendment claim involves a situation in which the authorities obtained incriminating evidence through a search and seizure. The defendant claims the search and seizure violated his fourth amendment rights. If the defendant can establish standing, he may attempt to have the evidence suppressed at a hearing. Thus, situations may arise in which the police have uncovered evidence through an admittedly illegal search, but the de- fendant against whom the evidence is being offered lacks the necessary standing to attempt suppression. Conversely, many defendants are suc- cessful in establishing standing, but are unable to have the evidence sup- pressed due to police compliance with search and seizure law. This Note discusses only the issue of standing, and does not deal with substantive search and seizure law. 1. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The fourth amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particu- lsaly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. 2. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most