Cal.1: Mere social visitor had no standing under Olson; no right to sanctuary for drug dealing

Defendant was a social visitor in the house of another, but the record did not show that he was there for any legitimate purpose and he had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Hiding in the bathroom did not enhance his expectation of privacy since he was not in there for its intended purpose. People v. Magee, 194 Cal. App. 4th 178, 123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 689 (1st Dist. 2011), modified and
rehearing denied by People v. Magee, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 545 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., May 5, 2011)
:

It is also appropriate to consider the implications of the bright-line rule defendant implicitly proposes: that, where a person has an ongoing social relationship with the residents of a house, the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy whenever present in the house with the permission of the residents. Defendant’s proposed rule would be problematic. There would seem to be no limit to the number of residences within which a person could claim a reasonable expectation of privacy. The proposed rule would permit drug dealers to create a network of sanctuaries in the areas where they conduct their illegal business by establishing social relationships and bathroom access privileges at homes in various strategic locations. This outcome would frustrate law enforcement and facilitate illegality, without advancing the “valuable” social customs (Olson, supra, 495 U.S. at p. 98) underlying the rationale to recognize as legitimate a social guest’s expectation of privacy. Although a social guest’s expectation of privacy is generally legitimate, even if he or she is engaging in unlawful conduct during a social visit, we conclude that defendant’s claimed expectation of privacy is not one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. (Id. at pp. 95–96.)