the search and seizure. We determined that they failed to prove “that the property or possessions seized and searched were owned, leased, controlled or rightfully possessed by them or that they had any interest in them,” and so lacked “a valid claim of lawful occupancy” in order to challenge the search warrant. Id. at 18, 36 A.2d at 348. In Lambert v. State, 196 Md. 57, 75 A.2d 327 (1950), we explained that one must “lawfully occupy” the premises; mere presence is not sufficient: [O]ne cannot complain of an illegal search and seizure of premises or property which he neither owns, nor leases, nor controls, nor lawfully occupies, nor rightfully possesses, or in which he has no interest 10. Only recently we cited the cases which followed that formula, and re-affirmed i d 758, 763 (1964) (<HOLDING>); Rizzo v. State, 201 Md. 206, 209, 93 A.2d
holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause holding that ferguson had no right to complain of search because he was not in lawful possession of the property holding that defendant could not complain of search and seizure of bags in which he disclaimed any ownership holding that invited error does not entitle the defendant to any relief and of which he will not be heard to complain on appeal holding where the commonwealth is not in possession of property in question petition for return of property is moot