Godfrey v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Godfrey v. United States

414 A.2d 214, 1980 D.C. App. LEXIS 330

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 1980

DocketNo. 12964

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 414 A.2d 214 (Godfrey v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Godfrey v. United States, 414 A.2d 214, 1980 D.C. App. LEXIS 330 (D.C. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The opinion in the above case, decided December 5, 1979 (408 A.2d 1244) shall be amended as follows:

On page 1246 beginning with “Just as a burglar . . . and ending with ‘illegitimate’.” insert the following in lieu thereof:

In Rakas, Rakas v. Illinois, supra, 439 U.S. 128 at 430 n.12, 99 S.Ct. 421, 430, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 and in Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 230 n.4, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 the Court addressed the reach of Fourth Amendment protection in terms of the ultimate question of guilt of the individual seeking to envoke that protection. While describing the accused in terms of “thief” or “burglar” carries the unfortunate pretrial connotation that the proponent of the motion to suppress is guilty, it would seem that no such conclusion is essential to resolving the question of standing. The real question is whether the person under the particular circumstances can be deemed to have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the thing or area searched and the item seized without reference to guilt.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The opinion in the above case, decided December 5, 1979 (408 A.2d 1244) shall be amended as follows:

On page 1246 beginning with “Just as a burglar . . . and ending with ‘illegitimate’.” insert the following in lieu thereof:

In Rakas, Rakas v. Illinois, supra, 439 U.S. 128 at 430 n.12, 99 S.Ct. 421, 430, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 and in Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 230 n.4, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 the Court addressed the reach of Fourth Amendment protection in terms of the ultimate question of guilt of the individual seeking to envoke that protection. While describing the accused in terms of “thief” or “burglar” carries the unfortunate pretrial connotation that the proponent of the motion to suppress is guilty, it would seem that no such conclusion is essential to resolving the question of standing. The real question is whether the person under the particular circumstances can be deemed to have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the thing or area searched and the item seized without reference to guilt.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

414 A.2d 214, 1980 D.C. App. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godfrey-v-united-states-dc-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack