The most radical departure of the new California doctrine from federal precedents, however, lies in the rejection of the requirement of "standing" which the federal courts have always imposed. In People v. Martin the California court announced its willingness to permit any criminal defendant to move for the exclusion of evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure -regardless of whether it was his premises that were searched or his property that was seized.

Rejection of the requirement of standing by this outstanding court calls for a re-evaluation of the requirement as it is imposed in every other jurisdiction that observes the exclusion principle. The analysis which follows will seek to accomplish this, first, by examining the standing requirement as it has been applied in federal practice; second, by inquiring into whether or not the requirement, as applied, is justified in the light of the theories and purposes of the exclusionary rule; and third, by attempting to ascertain what effect, if any, the California doctrine will have upon the practice in other jurisdictions following the federal rule.