525 U.S. at 90, 119 S.Ct. 469. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court’s determination that Bohmont was a “mere visitor” is not clearly erroneous. The finding is further supported by Turbyeville’s testimony that he went to the hotel room to purchase automobile rims from Bohmont, indicating that Bohmont was present in the room for purposes of carrying out a commercial transaction. As noted by the Supreme Court, individuals have less of an expectation of privacy in commercial property than in residential property. See id. (concluding that a visitor present temporarily for a few hours to carry out the commercial activity of bagging drugs had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the home); United States v. Sturgis, 238 F.3d 956, 958-59 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 880, 122 S.Ct. 182,
holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will holding that the state failed to prove that a hotel visitor had control over marijuana found in plain view in a hotel room because the state did not provide any evidence other than the defendants mere proximity to the marijuana holding that a visitor to a hotel room for purposes of distributing drugs failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room holding that a 7 excise tax based on the charge to the public for a hotel room applied to the price expedia demands from the consumer for the right to occupy the hotel room and not the price expedia agrees to pay the hotel for the room holding that a hotel guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his room during the period of time for which the room is rented