In United States v. Salvucci (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that “the automatic standing rule … has outlived its usefulness in this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” Yet, several state courts have held that under their state constitutions a defendant accused of a possessory crime who challenges a search and seizure must be accorded automatic standing. What are the merits of states, based on their own constitutions, affording defendants in this area more protection than required by the Supreme Court?