is almost always fact specific.” United States v. Owens, 167 F.3d 739, 748 (1st Cir.1999). “[A]n inquiring court must balance ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on personal security against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion.’ ” Chhien, 266 F.3d at 6 (quoting United States v. Sowers, 136 F.3d 24, 27 (1st Cir.1998)). “The Supreme Court has directed courts making this inquiry to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” Owens, 167 F.3d at 749 (citing United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985)). Moreover, “[d]eference is due to the exp h Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gomez, 276 F.3d 694, 697
holding that defendant could challenge search of luggage belonging to overnight guests staying in his house holding that squatter had no standing to challenge search of abandoned house where he was staying 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 squatter in home did not have standing to challenge search of house where he was staying holding that defendant staying in abandoned house had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house despite having a key to the house and the ability to let people in and out of it