Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of five mink skins during the closed season. His motion made before trial to suppress the evidence because of unlawful seizure was denied. He was convicted, and now appeals assigning the refusal to suppress the evidence as error. Held, judgment affirmed. The court said, "Upon a motion to suppress evidence because of an unlawful seizure, the burden of establishing that his rights have been transgressed is upon the party asserting such transgression." State v. Drew, 217 Wis. 216, 257 N. W. 681 (1934).
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - BURDEN OF PROVING ILLEGALITY OF SEARCH FOR PURPOSE OF SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol34/iss3/24