have a justifiable expectation of privacy, and therefore no Fourth Amendment right, with regard to the search of an automobile despite the fact that they were, like the defendant in Jones, “legitimately on the premises.” 439 U.S. at 141-42, 150, 99 S.Ct. 421. Thus, Rakas narrowed the definition of the scope of Fourth Amendment protection as it had been described eighteen years earlier in Jones. In reaffirming the applicability of the legitimate expectation of privacy test in determining whether Fourth Amendment rights are implicated, the court in Rakas wrote: [I]t would, of course, be merely tautological to fall back on the notion that those expectations of privacy which are legitimate depend primarily on cases deciding exclusionary-rule issues in criminal cases. Legitimatio Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673, 677 (9th
holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage located outside curtilage of home holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage placed in trash cans holding that a warrantless search of garbage located within the curtilage of the defendants home violated his fourth amendment rights holding that defendants lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in common area of residential building recognizing record supported determination that defendant lacked expectation of privacy in house