defendant has standing challenge (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

defendant has standing challenge in Michigan

9 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Gooding v. Wilsongreen
scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
2 sentences

1977See Gooding v Wilson, 405 US 518 ; 92 S Ct 1103 ; 31 L Ed 2d 408 (1972).

1977See Gooding v Wilson, 405 US 518 ; 92 S Ct 1103 ; 31 L Ed 2d 408 (1972).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Powell green
michctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2021A defendant has standing to challenge a search if he had “a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched.” People v Powell, 235 Mich App 557, 561 ; 599 NW2d 499 (1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2021A defendant has standing to challenge a search if he had “a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched.” People v Powell, 235 Mich App 557, 561 ; 599 NW2d 499 (1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

22016–2021
Rakas v. Illinois green
scotus · 1979
2 sentences

1984The United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, upon which the prosecution bases its argument, confers standing only upon those whose subjective expectation of privacy has been invaded, see Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; 99 S Ct 421 ; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978), and Rawlings v Kentucky, 448 US 98 ; 100 S Ct 2556 ; *31 65 L Ed 2d 633 (1980).

1984The United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, upon which the prosecution bases its argument, confers standing only upon those whose subjective expectation of privacy has been invaded, see Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; 99 S Ct 421 ; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978), and Rawlings v Kentucky, 448 US 98 ; 100 S Ct 2556 ; *31 65 L Ed 2d 633 (1980).

21983–1984
People v. Snider green
michctapp · 2000
2 sentences

2021If a defendant has standing to challenge a search, “[g]enerally, a search conducted without a warrant is unreasonable unless there exist[s] both probable cause and a circumstance establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.” People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 407 ; 608 NW2d 502 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021If a defendant has standing to challenge a search, “[g]enerally, a search conducted without a warrant is unreasonable unless there exist[s] both probable cause and a circumstance establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.” People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 407 ; 608 NW2d 502 (2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

12021–2021
People v. Zahn green
michctapp · 1999
1 sentence

2007Thus, a defendant has standing to challenge a search or seizure if, “under the totality of the circumstances, he has a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the search or seizure and the expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” Id. *179 Two of the subpoenas in question were directed at pawnshops and sought transaction records involving defendant.

12007–2007
People v. Anstey green
mich · 2006
2 sentences

2006At oral argument, the parties shall address whether the defendant has standing to challenge evidence seized in violation of MCL 767A.1 et seq. and, if so, whether the violation of that statutory provision authorizes exclusion of the evidence, in light of People v. Hawkins, 468 Mich. 488, 507 , 668 N.W.2d 602 (2003), and People v. Anstey, 476 Mich. 436, 448 , 719 N.W.2d 579 (2006).

2006At oral argument, the parties shall address whether the defendant has standing to challenge evidence seized in violation of MCL 767A.1 et seq. and, if so, whether the violation of that statutory provision authorizes exclusion of the evidence, in light of People v. Hawkins, 468 Mich. 488, 507 , 668 N.W.2d 602 (2003), and People v. Anstey, 476 Mich. 436, 448 , 719 N.W.2d 579 (2006).

12006–2006
People v. Hawkins; People v. Scherf green
mich · 2003
1 sentence

2006At oral argument, the parties shall address whether the defendant has standing to challenge evidence seized in violation of MCL 767A.1 et seq. and, if so, whether the violation of that statutory provision authorizes exclusion of the evidence, in light of People v. Hawkins, 468 Mich. 488, 507 , 668 N.W.2d 602 (2003), and People v. Anstey, 476 Mich. 436, 448 , 719 N.W.2d 579 (2006).

12006–2006
People v. Hawkins green
mich · 2003
1 sentence

2006At oral argument, the parties shall address whether the defendant has standing to challenge evidence seized in violation of MCL 767A.1 et seq. and, if so, whether the violation of that statutory provision authorizes exclusion of the evidence, in light of People v. Hawkins, 468 Mich. 488, 507 , 668 N.W.2d 602 (2003), and People v. Anstey, 476 Mich. 436, 448 , 719 N.W.2d 579 (2006).

12006–2006
People v. Perlos green
mich · 1990
2 sentences

1999People v Perlos, 436 Mich 305, 317-318 ; 462 NW2d 310 (1990); Smith, supra at 27-28 . *561 In determining whether a violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred, we must first ascertain whether the defendant has standing to challenge the search.

1999People v Perlos, 436 Mich 305, 317-318 ; 462 NW2d 310 (1990); Smith, supra at 27-28 . *561 In determining whether a violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred, we must first ascertain whether the defendant has standing to challenge the search.

11999–1999
People v. Smith green
mich · 1984
1 sentence

1999People v Perlos, 436 Mich 305, 317-318 ; 462 NW2d 310 (1990); Smith, supra at 27-28 . *561 In determining whether a violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred, we must first ascertain whether the defendant has standing to challenge the search.

11999–1999
United States v. Salvucci green
scotus · 1980
2 sentences

1999This determination is made by discerning whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched. [People v Duvall, 170 Mich App 701, 705 ; 428 NW2d 746 (1988), citing United States v Salvucci, 448 US 83 ; 100 S Ct 2547 ; 65 L Ed 2d 619 (1980).] The defendant has the burden of establishing standing, People v Lombardo, 216 Mich App 500, 505 ; 549 NW2d 596 (1996), and in deciding the issue, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances.

1999This determination is made by discerning whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched. [People v Duvall, 170 Mich App 701, 705 ; 428 NW2d 746 (1988), citing United States v Salvucci, 448 US 83 ; 100 S Ct 2547 ; 65 L Ed 2d 619 (1980).] The defendant has the burden of establishing standing, People v Lombardo, 216 Mich App 500, 505 ; 549 NW2d 596 (1996), and in deciding the issue, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances.

11999–1999
People v. Lombardo green
michctapp · 1996
2 sentences

1999This determination is made by discerning whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched. [People v Duvall, 170 Mich App 701, 705 ; 428 NW2d 746 (1988), citing United States v Salvucci, 448 US 83 ; 100 S Ct 2547 ; 65 L Ed 2d 619 (1980).] The defendant has the burden of establishing standing, People v Lombardo, 216 Mich App 500, 505 ; 549 NW2d 596 (1996), and in deciding the issue, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances.

1999This determination is made by discerning whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched. [People v Duvall, 170 Mich App 701, 705 ; 428 NW2d 746 (1988), citing United States v Salvucci, 448 US 83 ; 100 S Ct 2547 ; 65 L Ed 2d 619 (1980).] The defendant has the burden of establishing standing, People v Lombardo, 216 Mich App 500, 505 ; 549 NW2d 596 (1996), and in deciding the issue, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances.

11999–1999
People v. Duvall green
michctapp · 1988
2 sentences

1999This determination is made by discerning whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched. [People v Duvall, 170 Mich App 701, 705 ; 428 NW2d 746 (1988), citing United States v Salvucci, 448 US 83 ; 100 S Ct 2547 ; 65 L Ed 2d 619 (1980).] The defendant has the burden of establishing standing, People v Lombardo, 216 Mich App 500, 505 ; 549 NW2d 596 (1996), and in deciding the issue, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances.

1999This determination is made by discerning whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched. [People v Duvall, 170 Mich App 701, 705 ; 428 NW2d 746 (1988), citing United States v Salvucci, 448 US 83 ; 100 S Ct 2547 ; 65 L Ed 2d 619 (1980).] The defendant has the burden of establishing standing, People v Lombardo, 216 Mich App 500, 505 ; 549 NW2d 596 (1996), and in deciding the issue, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances.

11999–1999
Rawlings v. Kentucky green
scotus · 1980
2 sentences

1984The United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, upon which the prosecution bases its argument, confers standing only upon those whose subjective expectation of privacy has been invaded, see Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; 99 S Ct 421 ; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978), and Rawlings v Kentucky, 448 US 98 ; 100 S Ct 2556 ; *31 65 L Ed 2d 633 (1980).

1984The United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, upon which the prosecution bases its argument, confers standing only upon those whose subjective expectation of privacy has been invaded, see Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; 99 S Ct 421 ; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978), and Rawlings v Kentucky, 448 US 98 ; 100 S Ct 2556 ; *31 65 L Ed 2d 633 (1980).

11984–1984
People v. Wagner green
michctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1983Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; 99 S Ct 421 ; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978); People v Wagner, 114 Mich App 541, 547 ; 320 NW2d 251 (1982); People v Nabers, 103 Mich App 354, 373-374 ; 303 NW2d 205 (1981); People v Mack, 100 Mich App 45, 47 ; 298 NW2d 657 (1980).

1983Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; 99 S Ct 421 ; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978); People v Wagner, 114 Mich App 541, 547 ; 320 NW2d 251 (1982); People v Nabers, 103 Mich App 354, 373-374 ; 303 NW2d 205 (1981); People v Mack, 100 Mich App 45, 47 ; 298 NW2d 657 (1980).

11983–1983
People v. Nabers green
michctapp · 1981
2 sentences

1983Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; 99 S Ct 421 ; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978); People v Wagner, 114 Mich App 541, 547 ; 320 NW2d 251 (1982); People v Nabers, 103 Mich App 354, 373-374 ; 303 NW2d 205 (1981); People v Mack, 100 Mich App 45, 47 ; 298 NW2d 657 (1980).

1983Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; 99 S Ct 421 ; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978); People v Wagner, 114 Mich App 541, 547 ; 320 NW2d 251 (1982); People v Nabers, 103 Mich App 354, 373-374 ; 303 NW2d 205 (1981); People v Mack, 100 Mich App 45, 47 ; 298 NW2d 657 (1980).

11983–1983
People v. MacK green
michctapp · 1980
2 sentences

1983Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; 99 S Ct 421 ; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978); People v Wagner, 114 Mich App 541, 547 ; 320 NW2d 251 (1982); People v Nabers, 103 Mich App 354, 373-374 ; 303 NW2d 205 (1981); People v Mack, 100 Mich App 45, 47 ; 298 NW2d 657 (1980).

1983Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128 ; 99 S Ct 421 ; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978); People v Wagner, 114 Mich App 541, 547 ; 320 NW2d 251 (1982); People v Nabers, 103 Mich App 354, 373-374 ; 303 NW2d 205 (1981); People v Mack, 100 Mich App 45, 47 ; 298 NW2d 657 (1980).

11983–1983
People v. Smith green
michctapp · 1982
2 sentences

1982People v Smith, 118 Mich App 366 ; 325 NW2d 429 (1981).

1982People v Smith, 118 Mich App 366 ; 325 NW2d 429 (1981).

11982–1982

Where else courts name it

TX 50 (1988–2025) NY 12 (1989–2026) WA 9 (1962–2016) MI 9 (1977–2021) IL 9 (1983–2013) MA 8 (1991–2021) GA 6 (2000–2019) AZ 4 (2000–2016) MS 4 (2008–2026) FL 4 (1991–2006) ID 4 (2001–2026) AL 4 (1982–1999) UT 3 (1987–1994) TN 3 (2006–2018) DC 3 (2001–2008) CT 3 (1996–2009) MO 3 (1991–1995) VA 3 (1977–2012) NE 2 (1995–2020) CA 2 (2004–2016) ME 2 (2008–2019) CO 2 (1987–2012) OH 2 (1982–2010) KS 2 (1977–2014) NC 2 (1981–2007) IA 2 (2000–2019) LA 2 (1978–1983)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check