697 (1960), for the proposition that an individual has a justifiable expectation of privacy in a friend’s apartment. Id. at 352 n. 11, 88 S.Ct. 507. In Jones, the defendant who had a key to his friend’s apartment, where he kept a suit and shirt and may have slept a night in the past but not recently, was found to have standing to maintain a motion to suppress the fruits of a search of the apartment in part because “anyone legitimately on premises where a search occurs may challenge its legality .... ” 362 U.S. at 259, 267, 80 S.Ct. 725. Katz was decided in 1967, and was considered by Congress and the President when Title III was enacted in 1968. See, e.g., S.Rep. No. 90-1097 (1968), reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112, 2153. Since Katz was decided, Justice Harlan’s tw 1 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). In any event, for the purpose of defining the
holding that society recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy holding common areas of a storage facility not entitled to reasonable expectation of privacy because any tenant could invite anyone in holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth holding that captain has reasonable expectation of privacy in all areas of his ship