skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 97589 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Persons Who May Object to Unlawful Searches and Seizures - 1980 Supreme Court Cases of 'Standing' Limit Application of the Exclusionary Rule
Author(s): K S Cannaday
Corporate Author: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government
United States of America
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 10
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5381
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper describes three U.S. Supreme Court decisions during the 1980 term which further limit the application of the exclusionary rule for unconstitutional searches and seizures; it also explains the application of these decisions to North Carolina.
Abstract: The 1960 decision in Jones v. United States and decisions in 1968 and 1978 focused on the issue of the standing of criminal defendants to move for suppression of evidence obtained in an unlawful search. The three 1980 decisions substantially limit the application of the exclusionary rule and apply the limitation strictly, even in the face of flagrant government misconduct. The search in United States v. Salvucci dealt with the dwelling of someone other than the defendant. In Rawlings v. Kentucky, the search was of a third party's purse. In United States v. Payner, the search was of a briefcase of a third party. Under these decisions, the defendant wishing to suppress the fruit of a search has the burden of showing both that the search was unlawful and that the defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched. The new limitations on the application of the exclusionary rule will bind North Carolina courts and will be to the advantage of prosecutors in several important ways. The decisions do not, however, reduce the substantive protection given defendants once the fourth amendment is held to apply. Twelve footnotes are supplied.
Index Term(s): Behavior patterns; Burden of proof; North Carolina; Search and seizure laws; US Supreme Court decisions
Note: Administration of Justice Memoranda, N 81/01 (January 1981).
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.