Under Alderman v. United States (1969), Fourth Amendment standing to suppress evidence from illegal electronic surveillance belongs only to a person whose own words were unlawfully recorded or whose premises were bugged, and when a violation occurred the government must hand the surveillance records to the defense rather than let a judge screen them in private.1Justia. Alderman v. United States
Who Has Standing to Suppress the Recordings
The Supreme Court limited the right to challenge illegally obtained surveillance evidence to two situations:1Justia. Alderman v. United States
- The government unlawfully recorded that person’s own voice or words during a conversation.
- The illegal surveillance took place on that person’s premises, whether or not they were present or participating in the conversation at the time.
The second prong matters as much as the first. Fourth Amendment protection covers the privacy of the property itself, so the owner of a home or business where the government hid a microphone can object to the recordings even if the conversation captured was between other people.
Why Standing Cannot Be Borrowed From a Co-Defendant
Fourth Amendment rights are personal. A defendant can seek suppression only if the illegal search violated their own rights, not those of a co-conspirator or third party.2Congress.gov. Amdt4.7.3 Standing to Challenge Searches The practical result at a joint trial is that the same recording can be inadmissible against one defendant and admissible against another. Only the person whose words were captured, or whose premises were invaded, is the victim of the search for standing purposes.1Justia. Alderman v. United States
Government Disclosure of Surveillance Records
When the government has conducted illegal surveillance, Alderman requires it to turn over the relevant records and transcripts to the person whose rights were violated.1Justia. Alderman v. United States The reason is that suppression may reach further than the recordings themselves. If a witness or a piece of physical evidence was discovered because of the illegal wiretap, that derivative evidence may also be blocked, and the defense needs the underlying material to trace those links.
The Court rejected the alternative of having a judge review the surveillance records alone, in camera, to decide what mattered. The records go to the defense so that counsel can identify connections between the illegal monitoring and the prosecution’s case and argue for suppression on the full record.1Justia. Alderman v. United States