to tenants, visitors, solicitors, workmen and other members of the public.” Acosta, 965 F.2d at 1252. Accordingly, the majority of Circuits stand with the Third Circuit in finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of a multi-unit apartment building. See e.g., United States v. Nohara, 3 F.3d 1239, 1241 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallways of a high security, high rise apartment complex); United States v. Concepcion, 942 F.2d 1170, 1172 (7th Cir.1991) (noting that “the area outside one’s door lacks anything like the privacy of the area inside”, and holding that “a tenant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building.”); United States v. Holland, 755 F.2d 253, 255 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Eisler, 567 F.2d 814, 816
holding that common halls and lobbies of multitenant buildings are not within an individual tenants zone of privacy even though they are guarded by locked doors holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived holding that claims are related if they involve a common core of facts or they are based on related legal theories holding that even though motive and opportunity are not sufficient to prove identity they are circumstances indicative of guilt