Which factor is NOT required for establishing standing in a search and seizure context?

In the context of search and seizure, establishing standing involves demonstrating that an individual has a sufficient connection to the property being searched or seized, which justifies their right to challenge the legality of that search or seizure.

The correct answer indicates that consent from another person is not a factor required for an individual to establish standing. In legal terms, standing is typically established through an individual's own interests, rights, or expectations regarding the property in question. Therefore, even if someone with ownership or lawful possession consents to a search, it does not automatically grant standing to another person unless they have a direct interest in the matter.

On the other hand, ownership of the searched property is crucial because it directly connects the individual to the property, supporting their claim to privacy rights. Reasonable expectation of privacy is also vital, as it relates to an individual's belief that their space or belongings would not be subject to intrusion. Furthermore, lawful possession relates to an individual's direct control or authority over the property, also contributing to their standing. These factors affirm an individual's rights and interests regarding the property, making them relevant in the standing analysis for search and seizure issues.