court concluded that: “Squatters’ Row” on Sand Island has been allowed to exi , 1240 (1991) (finding that Fourth Amendment was not applicable to trespasser in house); People v. Sumlin, 105 Misc.2d 134, 431 N.Y.S.2d 967, 970 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1980) (determining that guest of squatter did not have Fourth Amendment rights in apartment where squatter was staying). Other courts, like this Court, utilizing the objectively reasonable standard, have determined that “squatters” do not have standing to challenge the legality of a search of the premises in which they stayed. See Zimmerman v. Bishop, 25 F.3d 784, 788 (9th Cir.1994) (concluding that Fourth Amendment rights of guest of squatter were not violated by search of shack on another’s property); Davis v. State, 119 S.W.3d 359, 367 (Tex.App.2003) (<HOLDING>); Woodson v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 621, 491
holding that squatter had no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore no fourth amendment standing to challenge search of abandoned structure holding that defendant could challenge search of luggage belonging to overnight guests staying in his 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 holding that squatter in home did not have standing to challenge search of house where he was staying holding that a squatter had no standing to challenge search of vacant home he frequented for the sole purpose of engaging in drugrelated business transactions 