State v. Boyd, 169 N.C. App. 204, 206-07, 609 S.E.2d 785, 787 (2005) (quoting State v. Mlo, 335 N.C. 353, 377-78, 440 S.E.2d 98, 110-11, cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1224, 129 L. Ed. 2d 841 (1994)). Here, defendant offered no evidence at the suppression hearing, and points to none on appeal, to demonstrate that he had an ownership interest in the cellular telephones or had been given a possessory interest by the legal owner. Defendant only maintained that he had possession of the telephones and consequently an expectation of privacy in the records related to those telephones. Defendant did not go so far as to claim that Katsigiannis lent him the telephones. Our Courts will not assume ownership or a possessory interest in property based on mere possession. Id. at 207, 609 S.E.2d at 787 (<HOLDING>). In sum, defendant did not meet his burden of
recognizing that a temporary use of property does not automatically create an expectation of privacy in that property recognizing that pursuant to pennsylvanias unclaimed property act abandoned property is held in perpetual temporary custody of the state holding evidence which established that use of property was permissive showed use of property was not adverse holding that expectation of privacy that the owner of commercial property enjoys in such property differs significantly from the sanctity accorded an individuals home holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property