rights thereunder have been infringed, and they alone may invoke it.” Id. at 156, 161 A. at 245. We further refined the concept of lawful occupancy of premises in Resnick v. State, 183 Md. 15, 36 A.2d 347 (1944), in which the police, pursuant to a search warrant, seized betting slips and other gambling accouterments. Various individuals, who claimed to have worked in the home for approximately a year, challenged the legality 281 (1952) (concluding that defendants could not complain of search of apartment in which they had no interest but for illegal operations); Saunders v. State, 199 Md. 568, 573, 87 A.2d 618, 620 (1952) (noting that accused cannot contest search of property in which he had no right, title, or interest); Lingner v. State, 199 Md. 503, 505-06, 86 A.2d 888, 890 (1952) (<HOLDING>); Frantom v. State, 195 Md. 163, 167, 72 A.2d
holding that defendant could not complain of search and seizure of bags in which he disclaimed any ownership holding tacit consent to search of person was insufficient to prove consent to search bags where bags were not in defendants actual possession defendant merely pointed out bags at officers request and officer never specifically asked for consent to search bags holding that the defendant had abandoned any possessory or privacy interest in bags found in the truck he was driving where he stated that he did not own the bags did not know who did and did not know what was in them holding that ferguson had no right to complain of search because he was not in lawful possession of the property holding that invited error does not entitle the defendant to any relief and of which he will not be heard to complain on appeal