areas constitute a residence subject to a legitimate expectation of privacy, the Government contends that exigent circumstances warranted the entry into the apartment building. (Id. at 16.) The Government bases this exigency on threats to law enforcement and the general public, as evidenced by the totality of the circumstances. (Id.) Aside from these contentions, the Government primarily contends that Defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the common areas of the apartment building. (Id. at 7.) Because it is a threshold issue, this latter contention serves as the focus for the Court’s Fourth Amendment inquiry. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of a multiunit apartment building. See United States v. Acosta, 965 F.2d 1248, 1252 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Dickens, 695 F.2d
holding that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in an apartment bmldings common entrance holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building holding that captain has reasonable expectation of privacy in all areas of his ship holding that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in the hallway of an apartment building where the building door was unlocked and the hallway was easily accessible to the public holding that defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in common area of residential building