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

45 Sw. L.J. 263 (1991-1992)
Criminal Procedure: Confession, Search and Seizure

handle is hein.journals/smulr45 and id is 275 raw text is: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: CONFESSION, SEARCH AND SEIZURE by Gary A. Udashen * and Barry Sorrels** HE areas of confession, search and seizure are in a constant evolu- tion. Each year brings major modifications and changes to this area of the law. This Article discusses some of the important decisions in this field of criminal law during the survey period. I. STANDING The question whether a defendant challenging an illegal search and seizure has standing is addressed as a preliminary matter in all cases. Ab- sent a demonstration of standing, the defendant has no legal basis to com- plain of the illegal police conduct or benefit from a court ruling finding the conduct illegal. As a result, illegally obtained evidence can be used against a defendant who fails to establish his or her standing to complain of police illegality.1 In Minnesota v. Olson2 the United States Supreme Court found that a defendant, an overnight guest in a private home, had standing to challenge a warrantless entry into the home to effect his arrest. The police suspected the defendant of being the driver of the getaway car used in a robbery-murder. The police surrounded the home of two women with whom the defendant was staying. When the defendant did not come out, the police entered the home without consent and arrested him. Citing Katz v. United States3 and Rakas v. Illinois,4 the Court explained that the capacity to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment depends... upon whether the person who claims the protection of the Amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place. A subjec- tive expectation of privacy is legitimate if it is one that society is pre- pared to recognize as reasonable.5 * B.S. University of Texas; J.D. Southern Methodist University. Partner, Milner, Go- ranson, Sorrels, Udashen, Wells & Parker, Dallas, Texas. ** B.A. Columbia College; J.D. Southern Methodist University. Partner, Milner, Go- ranson, Sorrels, Udashen, Wells & Parker, Dallas, Texas. 1. United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 731 (1980). 2. 110 S. Ct. 1684, 109 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1990). 3. 389 U.S. 347 (1967). 4. 439 U.S. 128 (1978). 5. Olson, 110 S. Ct. at 1687, 109 L. Ed. 2d at 92.

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