III. MEYERS LACKS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE WARRANTLESS ENTRY OF MARCY’S APARTMENT
An individual must have "standing" for Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures. (Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 439. U.S. 128.) A court cannot suppress evidence unless a defendant establishes a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place being searched. Id. Accordingly, the defendant has the burden of proof to establish standing. (People v. Ooley (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 197.)
In this case, Meyers does not live with Marcy nor is his name on the lease of her apartment. Accordingly, Meyers lacks standing to challenge the warrantless entry of Marcy’s apartment and has the burden of proof to establish otherwise.
IV. WHERE STANDING IS ESTABLISHED, OFFICERS HAD PROBABLE CAUSE AND EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONDUCT THE WARRANTLESS ENTRY THEREOF …show more content…
(Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 587.) Exigent circumstances are present when a reasonable person would believe that entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, or hot-pursuit of a fleeing felon. (United States v. Alaimalo (2002) 313 F.3d 1188.) Yet, even when exigent circumstances exist, officers must have probable cause to support a warrantless entry into a home. Id. Officers must, therefore, have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the place to be searched holds evidence of it. (United States v. Bishop (2001) 264 F.3d 919.) Accordingly, an officer may enter a private home without a warrant where there are probable cause and an exigent circumstance