appeal. II. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. These protections are personal to the person asserting them. See People v. Juarez, 770 P.2d 1286, 1288 (Colo.1989); People v. Morrison, 196 Colo. 319, 322, 583 P.2d 924, 926 (1978). Therefore, before a criminal defendant can challenge the constitutional validity of a governmental search, the defendant must demonstrate standing. See Juarez, 770 P.2d at 1289; People v. Naranjo, 686 P.2d 1343, 1345 (Colo.1984). A defendant need not be present at the time of the intrusion to assert standing. See 5 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.3(c), at 145 (3d ed.1996). The defendant must demon 2 S.Ct. 93, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, a purely transient guest
holding that defendants mother had common authority over defendants room in her house even though defendant paid rent and installed a lock in his room where he sought her permission to install the lock and gave her the only other key to 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 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 officers had a reasonable belief that defendants father had authority to consent to the search of his sons room and computer because he owned the home and had access to the room and computer at will 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