Rakas v. Illinois

1 Petitioners claim that they were never asked whether they owned the rifle or shells seized during the search and, citing Combs v. United States, 408 U. S. 224 (1972), argue that if the Court determines that a property interest in the items seized is an adequate ground for standing to object to their seizure, the Court should remand the case for further *131 proceedings on the question whether petitioners owned the seized rifle or shells. Reply Brief for Petitioners 4 n. 2. Petitioners do not now assert that they own the rifle or the shells. We reject petitioners’ suggestion. The proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure. See Simmons v. United States, 39( 0 U. S. 377 , 389-390 (1968); Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 , 261 (1960). The prosecutor argued that petitioners lacked standing to challenge the search because they did not own the rifle, the shells or the automobile. Petitioners did not contest the factual predicates of the prosecutor’s argument and instead, simply stated that they were not required to prove ownership to object to the search. App. 23. The prosecutor’s argument gave petitioners notice that they were to be put to their proof on any issue as to which they had the burden, and because of their failure to assert ownership, we must assume, for purposes of our review, that petitioners do not own the rifle or the shells. Combs v. United States, supra,-vas quite different. In Combs, the Government had not challenged Combs’ standing at the suppression hearing and the issue of standing was not raised until the appellate level, where the Government conceded that its warrant was not based on probable cause. Because the record was “virtually barren of the facts necessary to determine” Combs’ right to contest the search and seizure, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings. 408 U. S., at 227 . The Government had requested the Court to remand for 'further proceedings on this issue. Brief for United States in Combs v. United States, O. T. 1971, No. 71-517, pp. 40-41.

2 Although Jones v. United, States was based upon an interpretation of Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 41 (e), the Court stated in Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165 , 173 n. 6 (1969), that Rule 41 (e) conforms to the general standard and is no broader than the constitutional rule. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338 , 348-349, n. 6 (1974). There is an aspect of traditional standing doctrine that was not considered in Jones and which we do not question. It is the proposition that a party seeking relief must allege such a personal stake or interest in *133 the outcome of the controversy as to assure the concrete adverseness which Art. Ill requires. See, e. g., O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 , 493 (1974); Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83 , 99 (1968); Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 , 204 (1962). Thus, a person whose Fourth Amendment rights were violated by a search or seizure, but who is not a defendant in a criminal action in which the illegally seized evidence is sought to be introduced, would not have standing to invoke the exclusionary rule to prevent use of that evidence in that action. See Calandra, supra, at 352 n. 8.

3 The necessity for a showing of a violation of personal rights is not obviated by recognizing the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule, Alderman v. United States, supra, at 174. Despite the deterrent aim of the exclusionary rule, we never have held that unlawfully seized evidence is inadmissible in all proceedings or against all persons. See, e. g., United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U. S. 268 , 275 (1978); Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 , 486 (1976); United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S., at 348 . “[T]he application of the rule has been restricted to those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” Ibid.

4 We have not yet had occasion to decide whether the automatic-standing rule of Jones survives our decision in Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968). See Brown v. United States, 411 U. S. 223 , 228-229 (1973). Such a rule is, of course, one which may allow a defendant to assert the Fourth Amendment rights of another.

5 The search of the apartment in Jones was pursuant to a search warrant naming Jones and another woman as occupants of the apartment. The affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant alleged that Jones and *136 the woman were involved in illicit narcotics traffic and kept a supply of heroin and narcotics paraphernalia in the apartment. 362 U. S., at 267-269 , and n. 2; App. in Jones v. United States, O. T. 1959, No. 69, p. 1.

6 For these same prudential reasons, the Court in Alderman v. United States rejected the argument that any defendant should be enabled to apprise the court of unconstitutional searches and seizures and to exclude all such unlawfully seized evidence from trial, regardless of whether his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search or whether he was the “target” of the search. This expansive reading of the Fourth Amendment also was advanced by the petitioner in Jones v. United States and implicitly rejected by the Court. Brief for Petitioner in Jones v. United States, O. T. 1959, No. 69, pp. 21-25.

7 So, for example, in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 , 352 (1967), the Court focused on substantive Fourth Amendment law, concluded that a person in a telephone booth “may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment,” and then proceeded to determine whether the search was “unreasonable.” In Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U. S. 364 (1968), on the other hand, the Court concentrated on the issue of standing, decided that the defendant possessed it, and with barely any mention of the threshold substantive question of whether , the search violated DeForte’s own Fourth Amendment rights, went on to decide whether the search was “unreasonable.” In both cases, however, the first inquiry was much the same.

8 This approach is consonant with that which the Court already has taken with respect to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which also is a purely personal right. See, e. g., Beilis v. United States, 417 U. S. 85 , 89-90 (1974); Couch v. United States, 409 U. S. 322 , 327-328 (1973); United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694 , 698-699 (1944).

9 The Court in Jones was quite careful to note that “wrongful” presence at the scene of a search would not enable a defendant to object to the legality of the search. 362 U. S., at 267 . The Court stated: “No just interest of the Government in the effective and rigorous enforcement of the criminal law will be hampered by recognizing that anyone legitimately on premises where a search occurs may challenge its legality by way of a motion to suppress, when its fruits are proposed to be used against him. This would of course not avail those who, by virtue of their wrongful presence, cannot invoke the privacy of the premises searched.” Ibid. (emphasis added). Despite this clear statement in Jones, several lower courts inexplicably have held that a person present in a stolen automobile at the time of a search may object to the lawfulness of the search of the automobile. See, e. g., Cotton v. United States, 371 F. 2d 385 (CA9 1967); Simpson v. United States, 346 F. 2d 291 (CA10 1965).

10 The Court in Mancusi v. DeForte, supra, also must have been unsatisfied with the “legitimately on premises” statement in Jones. DeForte was legitimately in his office at the time of the search and if the Mancusi Court had literally applied the statement from Jones, DeForte’s standing to object to the search should have been obvious. Instead, to determine whether DeForte possessed standing to object to the search, the Court inquired into whether DeForte's office was an area “in which there was a reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.” 392 U. S., at 368; see id., at 376 (Black, J., dissenting). Unfortunately, with few exceptions, lower courts have literally applied this language from Jones and have held that anyone legitimately on premises at the time of the search may contest its legality. See, e. g., Garza-Fuentes v. United States, 400 F. 2d 219 (CA5 1968); State v. Bresolin, 13 Wash. App. 386 , 534 P. 2d 1394 (1975).

11 This is not to say that such visitors could not contest the lawfulness of the seizure of evidence or the search if their own property were seized during the search.

12 Obviously, however, a “legitimate” expectation of privacy by definition means more than a subjective expectation of not being discovered. A burglar plying his trade in a summer cabin during the off season may *144 have a thoroughly justified subjective expectation of privacy, but it is not one which the law recognizes as “legitimate.” His presence, in the words of Jones, 362 U. S., at 267 , is “wrongful”; his expectation is not “one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.’ ” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S., at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring). And it would, of course, be merely tautological to fall back on the notion that those expectations of privacy which are legitimate depend primarily on cases deciding exclusionary-rule issues in criminal cases. Legitimation of expectations of privacy by law must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society. One of the main rights attaching to property is the right to exclude others, see W. Blackstone, Commentaries, Book 2, ch. 1, and one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of this right to exclude. Expectations of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment, of course, need not be based on a common-law interest in real or personal property, or on the invasion of such an interest. These ideas were rejected both in Jones, supra, and Katz, supra. But by focusing on legitimate expectations of privacy in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Court has not altogether abandoned use of property concepts in determining the presence or absence of the privacy interests protected by that Amendment. No better demonstration of this proposition exists than the decision in Alderman v. United States, 394 U, S. 165 (1969), where the Court held that an individual’s property interest in his own home was so great as to allow him to object to electronic surveillance of conversations emanating from his home, even though he himself was not a party to the conversations. On the other hand, even a property interest in premises may not be sufficient to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to particular items located on the premises or activity conducted thereon. See Katz, supra, at 351 ; Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206 , 210 (1966); United States v. Lee, 274 U. S. 559 , 563 (1927); Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57 , 58-59 (1924).

13 An examination of lower court decisions shows that use of this purported “bright line” test has led to widely varying results. For example, compare United States v. Westerbann-Martinez, 435 F. Supp. 690 (EDNY 1977) (defendant has standing to object to search of co-defendant’s person at airport because defendant was lawfully present at time of search), with Sumrall v. United States, 382 F. 2d 651 (CA10 1967), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 1055 (1968) (defendant did not have standing to object to search of codefendant’s purse even though defendant present at time of search). Compare Holloway v. Wolff, 482 F. 2d 110 (CA8 1973) (defendant has standing to object to search of bedroom in house of third person because lawfully in house at time of search even though no showing that defendant had ever been given permission to use, or had ever been in, bedroom), with Northern v. United States, 455 F. 2d 427 (CA9 1972) (defendant lacked standing to object to search of apartment-mate’s bedroom even though present in apartment at time of search since no showing that defendant had permission to enter or use roommate’s bedroom), and United States v. Miller, 145 U. S. App. D. C. 312 , 449 F. 2d 974 (1971) (defendant lawfully, present in third person’s office has standing to object to police entry into office since lawfully .present but lacks standing to object to search of drawer of third person’s desk since no showing that he had permission to open or use drawer). Compare United States v. Tussell, 441 F. Supp. 1092 (MD Pa. 1977) (lessee does not have standing because not present at time of search), with United States v. Potter, 419 F. Supp. 1151 (ND Ill. 1976) (lessee has standing even though not present when premises searched). Compare United States v. Fernandez, 430 F. Supp. 794 (ND Cal. 1976) (defendant with authorized access to apartment has standing even though not present at time of search), with United States v. Potter, supra (defendants with authorized access to premises' lack standing because not present at the time of the search). Compare United States v. Delguyd, 542 F. 2d 346 (CA6 1976) *146 (defendant stopped by police in parking lot of apartment house which he intended to visit lacks standing to object to subsequent search of apartment since not present in apartment at time of search), with United States v. Fay, 225 F. Supp. 677 (SDNY 1963), rev’d on other grounds, 333 F. 2d 28 (CA2 1964) (defendant-invitee stopped in hallway of apartment building has standing to object to search of apartment he intended to visit).

14 Commentators have expressed similar dissatisfaction with reliance on “legitimate presence” to resolve Fourth Amendment questions. Trager & Lobenfeld, The Law of Standing Under the Fourth Amendment, 41 Brooklyn L. Rev. 421, 448 (1975); White & Greenspan, Standing to Object to Search and Seizure, 118 U. Pa. L. Rev. 333 , 344-345 (1970). And, as we earlier noted, supra, at 142 n. 10, the Court in Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U. S. 364 (1968), also implicitly recognized that the phrase “legitimately on premises” simply does not answer the question whether the search violated a defendant’s “reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.” See id., at 368 .

15 As we noted in Martinez-Fuerte, “[o]ne’s expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one’s residence.” 428 U. S., at 561.

16 The dissent states that Katz v. United, States expressly recognized protection for passengers of taxicabs and asks why that protection should not also extend to these petitioners. Katz relied on Bios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253 (1960), as support for that proposition. The question of Bios’ right to contest the search was not presented to or addressed by the Court and the property seized appears to have belonged to Bios. See United States v. Jeffers, 342 U. S. 48 (1951). Additionally, the facts of that case are quite different from those of the present case. Bios had hired the cab and occupied the rear passenger section. When police stopped the cab, he placed a package he had been holding on the floor of the rear section. The police saw the package and seized it after defendant was removed from the cab.

17 For reasons which they do not explain, our dissenting Brethren repeatedly criticize our “holding” that unless one has a common-law property interest in the premises searched, one cannot object to the search. We have rendered no such “holding,” however. To the contrary, we have taken pains to reaffirm the statements in Jones and Katz that “arcane *150 distinctions developed in property . . . law . . . ought not to control.” Supra, at 143, and n. 12. In a similar vein, the dissenters repeatedly state or imply that we now “hold” that a passenger lawfully in an automobile "may not invoke the exclusionary rule and challenge a search of that vehicle unless he happens to own or have a possessory interest in it.” Post, at 156, 158-159, 163, 165, 166, 168, 168-169. It is not without significance that these statements of today’s “holding” come from the dissenting opinion, and not from the Court’s opinion. The case before us involves the search of and seizure of property from the glove compartment and area under the seat of a car in which petitioners were riding as passengers. Petitioners claimed only that they were “legitimately on [the] premises” and did not claim that they had any legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas of the car which were searched. We cannot, therefore, agree with the dissenters’ insistence that our decision will encourage the police to violate the Fourth Amendment. Post, at 168-169.

1 Allowing anyone who is legitimately on the premises searched to invoke the exclusionary rule extends the rule far beyond the proper scope of Fourth Amendment protections, as not all who are legitimately present invariably have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And, as the Court points out, the dissenters’ standard lacks even the advantage of easy application. See ante, at 145-146. I do not share the dissenters’ concern that the Court’s ruling will “invit[e] police to engage in patently unreasonable searches every time an automobile contains more than one occupant.” See post, at 168. A police officer observing an automobile carrying several passengers will not know the circumstances surrounding each occupant’s presence in the automobile, and certainly will not know whether an occupant will be able to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, there will continue to be a significant incentive for the police to comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, lest otherwise valid prosecutions be voided. Moreover, any marginal diminution in this incentive that might result from the Court’s decision today is more than justified by society’s interest in restricting the scope of the exclusionary rule to those cases where in fact there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

2 There are sound reasons for this distinction: Automobiles operate on public streets; they are serviced in public places; they stop frequently; they are usually parked in public places; their interiors are highly visible; and they are subject to extensive regulation and inspection. The rationale of the automobile distinction does not apply, of course, to objects on the person of an occupant.

3 Six Members of the Court joined The Chief Justice in Chadwick, and the two Justices who dissented in Chadwick did not disagree with the automobile distinction.

4 The sawed-off rifle in this case was merely pushed beneath the front seat, presumably by one of the petitioners. In that position, it could have slipped into full or partial view in the event of an accident, or indeed upon any sudden stop. As the rifle shells were in the locked glove compartment, this might have presented a closer case if it had been shown that one of the petitioners possessed the keys or if a rifle had not been found in the automobile. The dissenting opinion suggests that the petitioners here took the same actions to preserve their privacy as did the defendant in Katz: Just as Katz closed the door to the telephone booth after him, petitioners closed the doors to their^automobile. See post, at 165 n. 15. Last Term, this Court determined in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106 (1977), that passengers in automobiles have no Fourth Amendment right not to be ordered from their vehicle, once a proper stop is made. The dissenting opinion concedes that there is no question here of the propriety of the stopping of the automobile in which the petitioners were riding. See post, at 160 n. 5. Thus, the closing of the doors of a vehicle, even if there were only one occupant, cannot have the same significance as it might in other contexts.

5 Even if one agreed with my dissenting Brethren that there was a Fourth Amendment violation in this case, the evidence seized would have been admissible under the modification of the exclusionary rule proposed by Mr. Justice White in his dissenting opinion in Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465 , 538 (1976): “[T]he rule should be substantially modified so as to prevent its application in those many circumstances where the evidence at issue was seized by an officer acting in the good-faith belief that his conduct comported with existing law and having reasonable grounds for this belief. These are recurring situations; and recurringly evidence is excluded without any realistic expectation that its exclusion will contribute in the slightest to the purposes of the rule, even though the trial will be seriously affected or the indictment dismissed.” See also Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 , 609-610 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring in part).

1 For the most part, I agree with the Court’s rejection, which was implicit in Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165 (1969), of petitioners’ secondary theory of target standing.

2 See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 , 269 (1973) (“Automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search”).

3 E. g., United States v. Edwards, 577 F. 2d 883 (CA5 1978) (en banc) ; Bustamonte v. Schneckloth, 448 F. 2d 699 (CA9 1971), rev’d on other grounds, 412 U. S. 218 (1973); United States v. Peisner, 311 F. 2d 94 (CA4 1962).

4 Accord, Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 , 389 (1968) (“[W]e have . . . held that rights assured by the Fourth Amendment are personal *160 rights, and that they may be enforced by exclusion of evidence only at the instance of one whose own protection was infringed by the search and seizure”).

5 See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 , 878 (1975) (“The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest”); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Thus, petitioners of course have standing to challenge the legality of the stop, and the evidence found may be a fruit of that stop. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 , 548, 556 (1976). Petitioners have not argued that theory here, perhaps because the justification necessary for such a stop is less than that needed for a search. See Terry v. Ohio, swpra. Nor have petitioners chosen to argue that they were “arrested” in constitutional terms as soon as they were ordered from the vehicle and that the search was a fruit of that infringement on their personal rights.

6 See United States v. Lisk, 522 F. 2d 228 (CA7 1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1078 (1976) (noted in 64 Geo. L. J. 1187 (1976)), after remand, 559 F. 2d 1108 (CA7 1977). Petitioners never asserted a property interest in the items seized from the automobile. The evidence found was useful to the prosecution solely on the theory that petitioners’ possession of the items was probative of petitioners’ identity as the robbers. In Jones the Court recognized automatic standing in possessory crimes because the prosecution should not be allowed to take contradictory positions in the suppression hearing and then at trial, and also because of the dilemma that the defendant would face if he were forced to assert possession to challenge a search. 362 U. S., at 263 . In Simmons we eliminated the dilemma by holding that the accused’s testimony at the suppression hearing could not be used against him at trial. 390 U. S., at 394 . We also noted that the question whether automatic standing should be recognized for possessory evidence in nonposses-sory crimes was an open one. Id., at 391-392 . Finally, in Brown v. United States, 411 U. S. 223 , 229 (1973), we reserved the question whether prosecutorial self-contradiction by itself warrants automatic standing.

7 See United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1 , 7 (1977).

8 See Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U. S., at 591 (plurality opinion) (“[I]nsofar as Fourth Amendment protection extends to a motor vehicle, it is the right to privacy that is the touchstone of our inquiry”).

9 Accord, id., at 589 (“The common-law notion that a warrant to search and seize is dependent upon the assertion of a superior government interest in property, . . . and the proposition that a warrant is valid ‘only when a primary right to such search and seizure may be found in the interest which the public or the complainant may have in the property to be seized, or in the right to the possession of it,’ . . . were explicitly rejected as controlling Fourth Amendment considerations in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294 , 302-306 (1967) ”).

10 Knox, Some Thoughts on the Scope of the Fourth Amendment and Standing to Challenge Searches and Seizures, 40 Mo. L. Rev. 1 , 36 n. 238 (1975).

11 See also United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 , 169, and 171 n. 7 (1974) (“The authority which justifies the third-party consent does not rest upon the law of property, with its attendant historical and legal refinements, . . . but rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched”).

12 Weinreb, Generalities of the Fourth Amendment, 42 U. Chi. L. Bev. 47, 54 (1974).

13 See id., at 52 (“The fourth amendment assures us that when we are in a private place we are, so far as the government is concerned, in private”).

14 The Court’s reliance on property law concepts is additionally shown by its suggestion that visitors could “contest the lawfulness of the seizure of evidence or the search if their own property were seized during the search.” Ante, at 142 n. 11. See also ante, at 149, and n. 16. What difference should that property interest make to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches, which is concerned with privacy? See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 , 510-521 (1971) (White, J., with Burger, C. J., concurring and dissenting). Contrary to the Court’s suggestion, a legitimate passenger in a car expects to enjoy the privacy of the vehicle whether or not he happens to carry some item along for the *165 ride. We have never before limited our concern for a person's privacy to those situations in which he is in possession of personal property. Even a person living in a barren room without possessions is entitled to expect that the police will not intrude without cause.

15 Jones had permission to use the apartment, had slept in it one night, had a key, had left a suit and a shirt there, and was the only occupant at the time of the search. Ante, at 141 and 149. Petitioners here had permission to b@ in the car and were occupying it at the time of the search. Thus the only distinguishing fact is that Jones could exclude others from the apartment by using his friend’s key. But petitioners and their friend the owner had excluded others by entering the automobile and shutting the doors. Petitioners did not need a key because the owner was present. Similarly, the Court attempts to distinguish Katz on the theory that Katz had “shut the door behind him to exclude all others,” ante, at 149, but petitioners here did exactly the same. The car doors remained closed until the police ordered them opened at gunpoint.

16 Olmstead v. United, States, 277 U. S. 438 , 478 (1928) (Brandéis, J., dissenting).

17 See Bacigal, Some Observations and Proposals on the Nature of the Fourth Amendment, 46 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 529 , 538 (1978).

18 Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U. S. 617 , 620 (1971); cf. ante, at 140.

19 So far as we know, the owner of the automobile in question might have expressly granted or intended to grant exactly such an interest. Apparently not contemplating today’s radical change in the law, petitioners did not know at the suppression hearing that the precise form of the invitation extended by the owner to the petitioners would be disposi-tive of their rights against governmental intrusion.

20 In fact, though it was not brought out at the suppression hearing, one of the petitioners is the former husband of the owner and driver of the car. He did testify at the suppression hearing that he was with her when she purchased it.

21 Contrary to the assertions in the majority and concurring opinions, I do not agree that the Court’s rule is faithful to the purposes of the Fourth Amendment but reject it only because it fails to provide a “bright line.” As the discussion, supra, at 169-166, indicates, this dissent disagrees with the Court’s view that petitioners lack a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court’s ipse dixit is not only unexplained but also is unjustified in light of what persons reasonably do, and should be entitled to, expect. My point in this portion of the opinion is that the Court’s lack of faithfulness to the purposes of the Fourth Amendment does not have even the saving grace of providing an easily applied rule.

22 To say that the Fourth Amendment goes beyond property rights, of course, is not to say that one not enjoying privacy in person would not be entitled to expect protection from unreasonable intrusions into the areas he owns, such as his house. E. g., Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165 (1969).

23 See Ingber, Procedure, Ceremony and Rhetoric: The Minimization of Ideological Conflict in Deviance Control, 56 B. U. L. Rev. 266 , 304-305 (1976) (police may often be willing to risk suppression at the behest of some defendants in order to gain evidence usable against those without constitutional protection); White & Greenspan, Standing to Object to Search and Seizure, 118 U. Pa. L. Rev. 333 , 349, 365 (1970) (same).