Defendants’ guest standing did not extend to contents of a hidden compartment they claimed no interest in

Defendants as overnight guests had standing to challenge the search of the apartment they were staying in, including all rooms within. They did not, however, have standing as to a hidden compartment with cash and drugs since they did not assert any interest in what was found there. United States v. Ontiveros, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29610 (S.D. N.Y. April 9, 2008):

However, neither defendant has claimed ownership of the items found in the trap, nor made any showing that they knew of the existence of the trap or its contents. Consequently, defendants have not demonstrated a legitimate expectation of privacy in the items found in the hallway trap. See Cody, 434 F. Supp. 2d at 167 (holding that refusal to claim ownership of an item or place results in a lack of standing to object to a search of that item or place); see also Torres, 949 F.2d at 608 (“Neither possession nor ownership of property established a legitimate expectation of privacy unless the party vigilantly protects the right to exclude others.”); cf. Gudema, 163 F.3d at 722 (collecting cases in which courts held that even an ownership interest is not enough to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy). Because defendants had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the trap or its contents, they cannot suppress the use of such evidence at trial. See Padilla, 508 U.S. at 81; Paynor, 447 U.S. at 731. Accordingly, defendants’ motions to suppress the cocaine and cash found inside the trap are denied.

State court’s ruling on defendant’s suppression motion was not contrary to clearly established law under Supreme Court cases. [Stone v. Powell not even cited in this 2254 habeas case.] Mullins v. Crosby, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29595 (M.D. Fla. April 10, 2008).*