The United States Supreme Court has recently reevaluated its concept of standing for claims involving violations of the fourth amendment. The apparent purpose for reevaluation of this fundamental constitutional principle was the Court's desire to respond to the debate currently raging over the scope of the exclusionary rule. Whether one perceives the fourth amendment as second to none in importance in the Bill of Rights or views it as a nuisance is not the issue here. Rather, the issue is whether, in its effort to limit the exclusionary rule, the Court has stripped the people of the United States of the protections guaranteed by the fourth amendment which the Court has historically recognized. A close inspection of the Court's recent decisions concerning fourth amendment standing reveals that the Court's desire for reform has resulted in a failure to follow precedent. The Court has taken the logic and reasoning from prior cases and liberally construed them to reach different results.
Wallace W. Sherwood,
Fourth Amendment Standing: Flat on Its Face,
36 Clev. St. L. Rev.
available at http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol36/iss3/7