State v. Maia

Before the trial court, at a hearing to suppress evidence of drugs found on or near his person, the defendant, Eric Maia, argued that when the police pursued him beyond the closed door of an enclosed porch common to two apartments,1 he had *244standing to contest that he was seized in violation of article first, § 7, of the state constitution.2 In other words, the defendant claimed that, under the state constitution, he is entitled to automatic standing. “Under the rule of automatic standing, a defendant may seek to suppress evidence as the fruit of an illegal search if he or she was legitimately…