 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Long8/25/2004
o investigate defendant's vehicle was improper. Defendant fails to provide any grounds on which we could conclude that he has standing to make such an argument. A defendant's standing to claim fourth amendment protection depends upon whether he or she has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place invaded. People v. Kidd, 178 Ill.2d 92, 135, 227 Ill.Dec. 463, 687 N.E.2d 945 (1997). Factors a court should consider are (1) who owned the property; (2) whether the defendant was legitimately present in the area searched; (3) whether the defendant had a possessory *826 interest in the area or the property seized; (4) whether the defendant had previously used the area searched or the area seized; (5) whether the defendant had the ability to control the property or to exclude others from using it; and (6) whether the defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the property. Kidd, 178 Ill.2d at 135-36, 227 Ill.Dec. 463, 687 N.E.2d 945. Of these factors, the only one that could possibly favor defendant is (2): defendant may have been in a permitted parking spot. This is clearly insufficient to give defendant standing. See People v. Rios, 278 Ill.App.3d 1013, 1015-16, 215 Ill.Dec. 756, 664 N.E.2d 153 (1996) (holding that tradespeople working in a building and storing tools there lacked standing to object to a search of the building).
**78 ***868 For the reasons stated, we reverse the order of the circuit court of DeKalb County quashing defendant's arrest and suppressing the evidence deriving from that arrest, and we remand the matter for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Page 1 2 3 4 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|