{"id":1585,"date":"2009-01-10T14:38:07","date_gmt":"2007-12-06T15:45:27","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-12-06T15:45:27","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1585","title":{"rendered":"Nominee for most ridiculous prosecution standing argument for 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"

“First, we address the State\u2019s argument that Kelley did not have standing to challenge the search of his apartment because he was in police custody at the time of the search.” Kelly v. State<\/a>, 371 Ark. 599, 269 S.W.3d 326 [slip op. at *4] (December 6, 2007):<\/p>\n

First, we address the State\u2019s argument that Kelley did not have standing to challenge the search of his apartment because he was in police custody at the time of the search. When determining whether a defendant had standing to challenge a search, the pertinent inquiry is whether the defendant manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched and whether society is prepared to recognize the expectation as reasonable. See Mazenpink v. State<\/em>, 336 Ark. 171, 907 S.W.2d 648 (1999). Even though Kelley was not present in his home during the search, he clearly had a subjective expectation of privacy in the area searched because a search of his home was involved, and society would be prepared to recognize a person\u2019s subjective expectation of privacy in his own home. See Mazenpink v. State<\/em>, supra (defendant who was not present in his home at the time of the search still had standing to challenge the searching officers\u2019 failure to use proper knock-and-announce procedures). Thus, Kelley did have standing to challenge the search of his apartment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The search was suppressed for violation of the Arkansas nighttime search rule for failing to show separate probable cause and reasons for a nighttime entry.<\/p>\n

Comment:<\/em> Of course he had standing. Arresting a defendant and removing him from the house deprives him of standing? Ridiculous. The docket sheet<\/a> omits the name of the AAG who put forth this insipid argument.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1585","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1585"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1585\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}