The analytical basis of the doctrine of standing for motions to suppress cannot be found in 'case or controversy' principles. See United States v. Hunt, 5 Cir. 1974, 505 F.2d 931. The general requirement that a litigant demonstrate standing in order to be permitted to pursue a lawsuit is based on the concern that unless the claimant alleges a specific, unique injury resulting from the wrong, a court cannot be assured that a concrete 'case or controversy' is presented, and the court may be unable to tailor relief closely to well defined claims. See Korioth v. Briscoe, 5 Cir. 1975, 523 F.2d 1271. In contrast, there is little doubt that a defendant seeking to have evidence against him suppressed will eagerly pursue the issue of the legality of the search, and no problems of unspecific or overbroad requests for relief inhere in such a motion. Rather, one must look to the policies underlying the exclusionary rule itself in seeking to understand this limitation on its invocation. The Supreme Court has recently stated: The purpose of the exclusionary rule is not to redress the injury to the privacy of the search victim . . . . Instead, the ...