Minnesota Supreme Court, 1980

State v. Guy

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided August 12, 1980 · Sheran

298 N.W.2d 45; 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1558 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas Johnson, County Atty., and David W. Larson, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for plaintiff., Clayton Tyler, Legal Rights Center, Inc., Minneapolis, for Guy., Peter W. Gorman, Minneapolis, for Kidd., Phillip S. Resnick, Minneapolis, for Harvey., Ronald M. Diker, Minneapolis, for Winston.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1984, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Wisumierski (Wis. 1982)
In re the Welfare of A.J.M. (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. Callaway (Wis. Ct. App. 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

SHERAN, Chief Justice.

The trial court, after a suppression hearing, certified as important and doubtful issues of standing of defendants who relied on doctrine of automatic standing for pos-sessory offenses. The doubt was over whether Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), which abolished automatic standing as a matter of federal constitutional law for nonpossessory offenses, also applied to possessory offenses. While this appeal was pending the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Salvucci, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980) and Rawlings v. Kentucky - U.S. - 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980), decided this issue, rejecting the doctrine of automatic standing as a matter of federal constitutional law in the context of possessory offenses. Accordingly, the justification for certification in this case no longer exists. As in Salvucci, we remand to the trial court so that defendants may have the opportunity to demonstrate, if they can, that their-own Fourth Amendment rights were violated. We leave for post-trial appeal, if any, the issue whether as a matter of state constitutional law the doctrine of automatic standing should have continued vitality in this context.

Remanded.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.