establish expectations of privacy and that an individual’s expectations in respect of privacy must be objectively reasonable. State v. Hempele, 120 N.J. 182, 200, 576 A.2d 793 (1990). It follows that an individual’s privacy interest in the home is accorded the most deference in state and federal constitutional law. State v. Johnson, 168 N.J. 608, 625, 775 A.2d 1273 (2001) (citing Kornegay v. Cottingham, 120 F.3d 392, 399-400 (3d Cir.1997)). Other settings also enjoy recognized expectations of privacy, although they do not receive the same deference as that accorded to one’s home. United States v. Thomas, 729 F.2d 120, 123-24 (2d Cir.1984) (stating that citizen’s expectation of privacy is less in office than in residence); United States v. Mankani, 738 F.2d 538, 542-45 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). One such setting is an inpatient hospital
holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed tp mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity recognizing that defendant had diminished expectationof privacy in motel room holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room for evidence of drug activity even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity