Also known as: target's standing · standing to sue · third-party standing
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A proposed basis for standing in criminal cases under which a defendant who is the target of an investigation may challenge the constitutionality of government action directed at third parties to obtain evidence against the defendant. Courts have rejected this basis because Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously.
Federal agents subpoena bank records of a company that holds accounts for suspect Tonya Takahashi. She moves to quash the subpoena claiming the records were obtained to build a case against her. The court denies the motion because target status alone does not confer standing to assert the bank's Fourth Amendment rights.
Investigators issue a subpoena to a phone company for call records of Trevor Tate's associate. Tate moves to suppress the records at trial arguing the subpoena violated the associate's rights. The court holds that Tate lacks standing because Fourth Amendment protections cannot be vicariously asserted by the investigation's target.
A grand jury subpoenas membership records from an organization to identify individuals linked to suspect Taliah Tang. She intervenes to quash the subpoena on privacy grounds. The court rejects the motion because target standing does not permit assertion of third-party constitutional interests.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Prosecutors subpoena documents from Threshold Capital concerning transactions involving suspect Theresa Tucker. She seeks to intervene claiming the subpoena is overbroad. The court denies intervention because target status does not create standing to litigate the rights of the subpoenaed third party.
Agents obtain a wiretap order for calls of a known associate of suspect Tessa Takahashi. She moves to suppress the resulting evidence arguing the order was invalid. The court rules that target standing is unavailable and only the party whose rights were directly violated may object.
Police search a storage unit rented by an associate of suspect Tori Taylor to gather evidence against her. She moves to suppress the seized items. The court denies the motion because Fourth Amendment rights are personal and target status alone does not confer standing.
No. Courts have consistently held that target status alone does not create standing. Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously by the person under investigation.
No. The Supreme Court has rejected target standing. Only the person whose own Fourth Amendment rights were violated may seek suppression.
Target standing has been rejected in the criminal procedure setting while associational standing and certain third-party standing doctrines remain available in civil and constitutional litigation when specific requirements are met.
…District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to which the action was referred, held that the Does and Hallford had no standing to sue, but that Roe did have standing, and that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional. The court declared the laws void but refused to issue an injunction against their enforcement.…