United States v. Salvucci (1980)

United States v. Salvucci 448 U.S. 83 (1980) was a Supreme Court case ruling that "automatic standing" to file a Fourth Amendment claim based on mere possession of a seized item lacks constitutional merit.[1] [2]

United States v. Salvucci
Argued March 26, 1980
Decided June 25, 1980
Full case nameUnited States v. John Salvucci
Citations448 U.S. 83 (more)
Case history
PriorUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT, v. JOHN M. SALVUCCI, JR., JOSEPH G. Zackular, 1979 United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit 599 F.2d at 1098
SubsequentReversed and remanded
Holding
Mere possession of a seized good during an illegal search does not automatically entitle a person to file a Fourth Amendment deprivation claim.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by Stevens, White, Stewart, Powell, Burger, Blackmun
DissentMarshall, joined by Brennan
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Jones v. United States (1960)

Background

edit

In 1978, John Salvucci and Joseph Zackular were federally indicted on 12 counts of stolen mail possession.[3] They filed a motion to suppress the checks during trial, arguing the affidavit supporting the search warrant lacked probable cause. The District Court agreed; the Court of Appeals upheld the suppression order based on the defendants' standing. [4]

Decision

edit

In a 7-2 majority opinion delivered by Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that simple possession of a seized item does not justify standing by itself. Instead, those who have "a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place" possess merit to file a Fourth Amendment claim.

Marshall's Dissent

edit

Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, posits that the automatic standing rule eliminates the "wasteful" requirement of pretrial preliminary standing hearings in possession cases.

References

edit
edit