Laney had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the home because at the time of the searches the ownership of the property had passed to the V.A., which, accordingly, had authority to enter and possess the home. Id. at 527, 842 A.2d at 776. The facts found by the trial court, viewed within the “objectively reasonable” standard, rendered Laney’s claim without merit. C. Squatters Nationwide Some courts throughout the country, in trying to determine whether a “squatter” has standing under the Fourth Amendment, have asked whether the individual manifested an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in the place searched and whether his or her expectation was one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable or legitimate. United States v. Gale, 136 F.3d 192, 195 (D.C.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Whitehead, 415 F.3d 583, 588
holding that squatter had no standing to challenge search of abandoned apartment because hardly more than a fugitive presence would not be one that could be accepted by society holding that squatter had no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore no fourth amendment standing to challenge search of abandoned structure holding that squatter had no standing to challenge search of abandoned 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  holding that squatter had no standing to challenge search of abandoned apartment which he had occupied solely for the business of packing for distribution for narcotics