What is the current state of the law on the doctrine of suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation?

" ' "The established principle is that suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence. . . ." [Citation.]' (United States v. Padilla (1993) 508 U.S. 77, 81-82.) This is because '[a] person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. [Citation.] And since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, [citation], it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the rule's protections. [Citation.]' (Rakas v. Illinois, supra, 439 U.S. at p. 134, fn. omitted.)" (People v. Rios (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 584, 597.)