was not reasonably suggested by the proven fact from which the inference was drawn.. Titus, 696 So.2d at 1258-64; see Bryant v. United States, 599 A.2d 1107, 1109 (D.C.1991)(poliee knowledge that residence was a rooming house not enough to support inference that public access was freely permitted and that residents held no privacy interests in common areas worthy of society’s protection); see also, e.g., id. at 1110 (where police officers entered rooming house through wide-open front door and passed through hallway, kitchen, and stairway to basement corridor where they arrested rooming house resident, resident had legitimate expectation of privacy in those areas where there was no indication they were open to the general public); United States v. Booth, 455 A.2d 1351, 1354 (D.C.1983) (<HOLDING>); People v. Douglas, 2 Cal.App.3d592, 82
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 holding that defendants constitutionally protected privacy interest began at the door to his room not at the door to the rooming house holding that the evidence was sufficient to preclude inference where he tried to enter the house drunk and was staying at the neighboring house recognizing record supported determination that defendant lacked expectation of privacy in house holding that rooming house residents had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the front hallway of the house they shared which was not obviously a rooming house open to the general public