a suppression motion would necessarily have been meritorious because, in his separate case arising from possession of the stolen backhoe, he reached a favorable plea deal after filing a motion to suppress. This suggestion is less than persuasive for a number of reasons-the suppression motion was never ruled on, the backhoe evidence was much more closely related to the alleged police illegality, and the State's motives in allowing Vit to plead guilty to a reduced charge are not a matter of record. 3 . The State does not concede that Officer Thomas's initial entry onto Vit's property was illegal, arguing that Officer Thomas's actions may well have been permissible under the "open fields" doctrine. See Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 182-84, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984) (<HOLDING>). We need not decide this issue, and we simply
holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in utility records under either state or federal constitution holding that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic bags placed in or near his open garbage cans and that the police did not violate his fourth amendment rights in seizing and searching the bags where they were able to do so without trespassing on the defendants property holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields despite fences gates locks and no trespassing signs