Morton v. United States

The majority concludes that “appellant met his burden of showing that he personally had a protectible interest in the house the police entered to seize him.” The majority’s conclusion rests upon its “attempt *183to read the ‘tea leaves’ of how the Supreme Court would decide this case .... ” The majority’s reading leads it to declare that the trial court erred in denying, for lack of standing, appellant’s motion to suppress evidence of his on-scene identification by an undercover police officer who purchased drugs from him just several minutes before another police officer seized him in a house to…