6. Your affiant is entitled to have said physical evidence suppressed and to have all persons having knowledge of said evidence, including said officers and agents restrained and enjoined from testifying concerning the same against your affiant. It appears that the motion to suppress had been presented to the Chief Judge of this court who, on May 9, 1967 published an order, D.C., 275 F. Supp. 5, denying the motion. In an abundance of precaution the court allowed a renewal of the motion, heard arguments, and referred to cases cited by counsel pro and con.
Here, since the children were only requested and instructed to search the backyard premises of Appellant's father's house, Appellant falls short of demonstrating under prevailing authorities that the state action attributable to Queen Perkins and the others constituted an invasion of a constitutionally protected area. See Monnette v. United States (5th Cir. 1962), 299 F.2d 847; United States v. Clancy (D.C. Miss. 1968), 285 F. Supp. 98; United States v. Campbell (D.C.So.Car. 1967), 275 F. Supp. 5. Even if we were persuaded that the grounds surrounding a dwelling are entitled to protection under the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, we have serious reservations whether, under the present circumstances, Appellant demonstrates sufficient standing to challenge a search of the outlying portions of premises owned by his father.