Thus, one factor the court should consider is whether the defendant has a possessory or proprietary interest in the subject of the search. See Naranjo, 686 P.2d at 1345; People v. Suttles, 685 P.2d 183, 190 (Colo.1984). However, possessory and proprietary interests are not necessarily determinative. A defendant may possess a legitimate expectation of privacy in a home absent a legal interest in the premises and absent legal authority to determine who may or may not enter the household. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 99, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990). For example, an overnight guest may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in another person’s home. See id. at 96-97 & n. 5, 110 S.Ct. 1684; Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 369, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 50-51,
recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole holding that an outofstate attorney paying rent for a desk in an attorneys instate office had satisfied the office requirement holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee holding that civilian employee of navy weapons plant lacked legitimate expectation of privacy in private office when office was regularly searched in employees absence employee was aware that such searches occurred and employee had participated in searches of coworkers offices holding that when a judicial office is created by legislative act or municipal ordinance  the office is regarded as a de facto office until the act or ordinance is declared invalid