less of a legitimate expectation of privacy in his gym bag than one would have in a suitcase, a purse, a briefcase or a cardboard box. See United States v. Medina-Verdugo, 637 F.2d 649, 653 (9th Cir.1980) (Kennedy, J.) (“We assume, moreover, because the Government has not argued to the contrary, that the gym bag searched here is the equivalent of a closed suitcase to which an expectation of privacy attaches.”). At oral argument, the parties were uncertain as to whether the record confirmed that Davis’ bag was closed at the time that the officers found it. In his brief to the district court, however, Davis asserted that the officers found his bag under the bed and then opened it, and the government stipulated to these facts in its opposition brief. We have held that 26 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Quite simply, by placing his gym bag under
holding that defendant had expectation of privacy in a briefcase placed beneath the bed even though he had overstayed his lease holding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in blood sample drawn by hospital holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in gambling records stored under his parents bed although he did not reside regularly at his parents home he kept clothing there and had occasionally remained overnight holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth