{"id":6761,"date":"2012-03-02T09:52:30","date_gmt":"2012-03-02T09:50:51","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-03-02T09:50:51","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6761","title":{"rendered":"OH9: Need to establish standing in a possession offense is not a \u201cCatch-22\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant was not in a \u201cCatch-22\u201d by having to establish standing since it couldn\u2019t be used to prove guilt. The trial court explained it to her. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/9\/2012\/2012-ohio-746.pdf\">State v. Vu<\/a>, 2012 Ohio 746, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 650 (9th Dist. February 27, 2012):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p> [*P23]  Vu asserted in the court below that the trial court placed her in a &#8220;Catch-22&#8221; by insisting that she prove a possessory interest in the properties, as any such proof would aid the State&#8217;s case. She also avers on appeal that it is illogical that she was barred from seeking suppression on the basis that she lacked a possessory interest, but was found guilty of possession, for which there had to be evidence of a possessory interest. The answer to both arguments lies in the difference between the suppression stage and the trial stage.<\/p>\n<p> [*P24]  Although the State bore the burden of proof at trial, it was Vu&#8217;s burden to prove that she possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy for purposes of suppression. Redding, 2010 Ohio 4286, at \u00b6 8, quoting Blackert, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 3818, 1992 WL 174642, at *3. Further, any evidence she introduced at the suppression stage to prove that she had a possessory interest would not have been admissible against her at trial on the issue of guilt. <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=18211973969372867616&amp;q=simmons+v.+united+states&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Simmons<\/a>, 390 U.S. at 394. The trial court explained both propositions of law to Vu&#8217;s counsel at the suppression stage. Even so, Vu&#8217;s counsel maintained that he did not have any testimony to offer, the record spoke for itself, and Vu automatically should be entitled to challenge the applicable search warrants, given that the State intended to pursue possession charges against her. The United States Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion of &#8220;automatic standing,&#8221; however, and it was Vu&#8217;s burden to demonstrate a privacy interest. State v. Johnson, 63 Ohio App.3d 345, 347-348, 578 N.E.2d 867 (9th Dist.1989), citing United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 91-93, 100 S. Ct. 2547, 65 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1980). Because she failed to carry her burden, the trial court did not err by concluding that she lacked standing to challenge the warrants issued for the houses at Troon Avenue, Baywood Drive, and Autumnwood Lane and the apartments at Grand Lake Drive and Stoneybrook Lane. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Come on: <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=18211973969372867616&amp;q=simmons+v.+united+states&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Simmons<\/a> is almost 45 years old.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6761\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-6761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6761","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=6761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6761\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}