The application of the exclusionary rule, a remedial measure intended to protect against fourth amendment violations, would be inappropriate in the absence of a showing of some infringement of the defendant's own fourth amendment rights. Edward Jevarjian entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of marijuana with intent to sell by a person who is not drug dependent conditioned on his right to appeal. Jevarjian appealed the court's denial of his motions to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his home and a recreational vehicle owned and occupied by Dennis Thompson, which was parked on Jevarjian's property. The defendant claimed that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress because the search commenced prior to the time noted in the warrant by the judge who signed it. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment determining that the trial court's finding that the defendant lacked standing to contest the search of Thompson's vehicle was not clearly erroneous. The Appellate Court also concluded that the trial court's determination that the search was not unreasonably premature but marred only by a scrivener's error in the warrant that did not invalidate it, was not improper based on the trial court's weighing of the facts. Jevarjian appealed the second holding alone. The certified issue was whether the Appellate Court properly determined that the judge issuing the search warrant made a scrivener's error as to the time of execution. The state argued that the defendant's failure to appeal the standing determination rendered moot the issue of the warrant's validity. The Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the appeal as moot. The defendant could obtain no practical relief regardless of how the certified issue was resolved. Even if the Supreme Court were to agree with the defendant that the search of his home and garage was unlawfully premature and that evidence obtained therefrom should be excluded, the exclusionary rule could not preclude the admission of the evidence seized from Thompson's recreational vehicle because the defendant was not "the victim of the search" of that vehicle. The resolution of the certified issue would not affect the defendant's conditional plea.