of expectations of privacy by law must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society. Id. at 143 n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 421 (emphasis added). There are civil cases and criminal prosecutions in which juries, as representatives of the community, decide whether an expectation of privacy is regarded as justified by society. See e.g., Boddie, 731 F.2d at 338-39; Duncan, 598 F.2d at 849-50. In such cases, it is true that judges are not the arbiters of what expectations of privacy society regards as reasonable. There are, however, also many exclusionary rule cases in which judges do make that decision. See, e.g., United States v. Fultz, 146 F.3d 1102, 1105 (9th Cir.1998)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Shanks, 97 F.3d 977, 980
holding a person at anothers residence solely for the purpose of engaging in drug related activity has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence holding that where there is no evidence of shared use or common authority an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files kept on a personally owned computer holding that a car passenger had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his closed brown paper bag found on the floorboard of his companions car holding that homeless person enjoyed reasonable expectation of privacy in closed cardboard box in garage of residence in which he kept his belongings holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in an underground parking garage attached to a condominium complex