TN: Defendant has standing to contest a search of his own person

Trial court erred in concluding defendant did not have standing to contest a search warrant for his person. Defendant did not have standing as to the premises he was in as a casual visitor. State v. Heller, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 556 (July 24, 2008):

We conclude that the evidence preponderates against the finding of the trial court only with regard to the defendant’s standing to challenge the search of his person. Because the defendant was directly identified as the object of the search warrant, he possesses the requisite standing to challenge a search of his person. An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her person. State v. Cothran, 115 S.W.3d 513, 521 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (citing State v. Transou, 928 S.W.2d 949, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996)).

Defendant’s taillight violation justified his stop, so defense counsel was not ineffective for not arguing it. Garza v. State, 261 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008).*

911 call from defendant’s significant other did not provide reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop. State v. Roybal, 2008 UT App 286, 191 P.3d 822, 609 Utah Adv. Rep. 26 (2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.