Murdaugh v. Livingston

How later courts describe this case

• holding that non-resident defendants had no legitimate expectation of privacy in apartment in which they briefly conducted drug-dealing activities
• holding that defendants lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy because they did not have a relationship with the home owner, but rather were “simply permitted on the premises”
• holding that expectation of privacy in commercial premises is different from, and indeed less than, a similar expectation in individual’s home
• holding that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the host's home that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
• recognizing that legal protections inure to residents of a home “even when they merely occupy it rent free — so long as they actually live there”
• holding that individuals present in home merely to engage in drug trafficking activity have no reasonable expectation of privacy
• holding that defendants had no legitimate expectation of privacy in, and thus could not challenge the search of, another’s dwelling which they had visited only for the commercial purpose of bagging cocaine
• holding that guests in apartment for cocaine transaction lacked standing to contest search of apartment on Fourth Amendment grounds