The opinion
ORDER ON PETITION TO REHEAR
The State has filed a petition to rehear asserting that certain language in the Court’s opinion appears to require the public prosecutor to establish the legality of a challenged search prior to the defendant’s demonstration of standing and conflicts with precedent. In referring to a search of defendant’s person the Court said:
In a case such as this, where the police conduct a warrantless search, the burden is upon the public prosecutor, to show the circumstances met the Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. Until that has been accomplished to the satisfaction of the hearing judge the defendant is not required to establish he has standing to object to the search.
In order to object to the admission of illegally seized evidence, the defendant must show that he has some interest in the property seized, or the premises searched, or at least his right of privacy has been involved.
A search of one’s person is such an incipient invasion of the right of privacy that it is difficult to perceive why the State would raise the issue of the burden of proof on a motion to suppress, as occurred in this case. The authority offered by the State does not support the petition under the factual situation presented by the evidence at the hearing.
The petition to rehear is denied.
DROWOTA, C.J., and FONES, COOPER and HARBISON, JJ., concur.