Standing to Suppress Evidence - Revision history

Cmattesich: /* Countries where Standing is not required */

2010-09-07T08:55:37Z

Countries where Standing is not required

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:55, 7 September 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:

	==Countries where Standing is not required==		==Countries where Standing is not required==
	The standing requirement does not apply in the following ~~countries that use~~ some ~~varient~~ of the exclusionary rule:		The standing requirement does not apply in the following country, which uses some variant of the exclusionary rule:
	*South Africa		*South Africa

	----		----
	See [[Exclusionary Rule]]		See [[Exclusionary Rule]]

Cmattesich: /* Background */

2010-09-06T11:55:59Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:55, 6 September 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Background==		==Background==
	In some jurisdictions an individual must have "standing" in order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained. Under the theory of standing, a defendant can only challenged the admissibility of the evidence if they have had their own Constitutional rights violated. Thus, if police execute an illegal search of the defendant's sister's house and obtain evidence against the defendant, the defendant may not challenge the admissibility of the evidence because it was the sister's rights who were violated.		In some jurisdictions an individual must have "standing" in order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained.

			Under the theory of standing, a defendant can only challenged the admissibility of the evidence if they have had their own Constitutional rights violated. Thus, if police execute an illegal search of the defendant's sister's house and obtain evidence against the defendant, the defendant may not challenge the admissibility of the evidence because it was the sister's rights (and not his own) who were violated.

	This rationale ignores the fact that suppression of the evidence would still provide the deterrent effect that the rule is intended to provide.		This rationale ignores the fact that suppression of the evidence would still provide the deterrent effect that the rule is intended to provide.

Cmattesich: /* Background */

2010-08-27T10:01:13Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:01, 27 August 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Background==		==Background==
	In some jurisdictions an individual must have "standing" order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained. Under the theory of standing, a defendant ~~should not be able to challenge~~ the admissibility of the evidence if they have ~~not~~ had their own Constitutional rights violated. Thus, if police execute an illegal search of the defendant's sister's house and obtain evidence against the defendant, the defendant may not challenge the admissibility of the evidence because it was the sister's rights who were violated.		In some jurisdictions an individual must have "standing" in order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained. Under the theory of standing, a defendant can only challenged the admissibility of the evidence if they have had their own Constitutional rights violated. Thus, if police execute an illegal search of the defendant's sister's house and obtain evidence against the defendant, the defendant may not challenge the admissibility of the evidence because it was the sister's rights who were violated.

	This ~~rational~~ ignores the fact that suppression of the evidence would still provide the deterrent effect that the rule is intended to provide.		This rationale ignores the fact that suppression of the evidence would still provide the deterrent effect that the rule is intended to provide.

	==Countries where Standing is required==		==Countries where Standing is required==

Ibjadmin: /* Background */

2010-08-27T09:17:09Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:17, 27 August 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Background==		==Background==
	In some jurisdictions an individual must have "standing" order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained. Under the theory of standing, a defendant should not be able to challenge ~~teh~~ admissibility of the evidence if they have not had their own Constitutional rights violated. Thus, if police execute an illegal search of the defendant's sister's house and obtain evidence against the defendant, the defendant may not challenge the admissibility of the evidence because it was the sister's rights who were violated.		In some jurisdictions an individual must have "standing" order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained. Under the theory of standing, a defendant should not be able to challenge the admissibility of the evidence if they have not had their own Constitutional rights violated. Thus, if police execute an illegal search of the defendant's sister's house and obtain evidence against the defendant, the defendant may not challenge the admissibility of the evidence because it was the sister's rights who were violated.

	This rational ignores the fact that suppression of the evidence would still provide the deterrent effect that the rule is intended to provide.		This rational ignores the fact that suppression of the evidence would still provide the deterrent effect that the rule is intended to provide.

Jyoder: /* Countries where Standing is not required */

2010-08-23T13:06:42Z

Countries where Standing is not required

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:06, 23 August 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:

	==Countries where Standing is not required==		==Countries where Standing is not required==
	~~Standing Requirement~~ does not apply in the following countries that use some varient of the exclusionary rule:		The standing requirement does not apply in the following countries that use some varient of the exclusionary rule:
	*South Africa		*South Africa

	----		----
	See [[Exclusionary Rule]]		See [[Exclusionary Rule]]

Jyoder at 13:06, 23 August 2010

2010-08-23T13:06:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:06, 23 August 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Background==		==Background==
	In some jurisdictions an individual must ~~be harmed in~~ order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained. In the United States ~~this~~ is ~~called~~ the ~~"standing~~ rule."		In some jurisdictions an individual must have "standing" order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained. Under the theory of standing, a defendant should not be able to challenge teh admissibility of the evidence if they have not had their own Constitutional rights violated. Thus, if police execute an illegal search of the defendant's sister's house and obtain evidence against the defendant, the defendant may not challenge the admissibility of the evidence because it was the sister's rights who were violated.

			This rational ignores the fact that suppression of the evidence would still provide the deterrent effect that the rule is intended to provide.

			==Countries where Standing is required==
			===United States===
			Standing is one of several [[Justiciability Doctrine \|justiciability doctrines]] that the United States Court has determined are required before a court can hear a case or a dispute.

			==Countries where Standing is not required==
			Standing Requirement does not apply in the following countries that use some varient of the exclusionary rule:
			*South Africa

			----
			See [[Exclusionary Rule]]

Jyoder: moved Standing to Standing to Suppress Evidence

2010-08-23T12:59:55Z

moved Standing to Standing to Suppress Evidence

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:59, 23 August 2010
(No difference)

Jyoder: Created page with '==Background== In some jurisdictions an individual must be harmed in order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained. In the United States this is ca�'

2010-08-23T12:59:42Z

Created page with '==Background== In some jurisdictions an individual must be harmed in order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained. In the United States this is ca�'

New page

==Background==
In some jurisdictions an individual must be harmed in order to challenge the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained. In the United States this is called the "standing rule."