questions ... the first is whether the individual, by his conduct, has exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy (that he seeks to preserve something as private), and the second question is whether the individual’s subjective expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (whether the individual’s expectation, viewed objectively, is justifiable under the circumstances). Id. at 26-27, 537 A.2d at 619-20 (citations omitted). In Ricks, appellants challenged the video surveillance of an apartment where they had been conducting illegal sales of narcotics. Id. at A.2d 172, 178-79 (1991) (finding that squatter could not claim Fourth Amendment right to privacy in abandoned structure); but cf. State v. Dias, 62 Haw. 52, 609 P.2d 637, 639-40 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The only definitive circumstance, apparently,
holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search recognizing that standing is an essential component of our appellate jurisdiction and permitting party to appeal only after determining that they had met the requirements of article iii standing holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle holding that squatter had no standing to challenge search of abandoned house where he was staying holding that squatters on stateowned land had standing to challenge search consistent not only with reason but also with our traditional notions of fair play and justice