common area premises where the marijuana was actually found were accurately described in the search warrant. Trial counsel does not provide ineffective assistance by failing to make a meritless objection. Forrest v. State, 290 S.W.3d 704, 717 (Mo. banc 2009). “[Before an individual can challenge a search and seizure, he or she must establish that he or she had a ‘legitimate expectation’ of privacy in the area searched or the items seized.” State v. Martin, 892 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (citing Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148-49, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978)). “[TJenants of multifamily dwellings have no legitimate expectation of privacy in common or shared areas.” U.S. v. Mendoza, 281 F.3d 712, 715 (8th Cir.2002); U.S. v. McGrane, 746 F.2d 632, 634 (8th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Movant lived in an apartment complex where he
holding bank clients had no legitimate expectation of privacy in banking information revealed to a third party holding that in a multifamily dwelling where other residents had access to a basement storage locker there was no legitimate expectation of privacy holding common areas of a storage facility not entitled to reasonable expectation of privacy because any tenant could invite anyone in holding that even though student had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his locker school officials properly conducted a warrantless search of the students locker because the officials had probable cause to believe that the locker contained marijuana holding that the plaintiff had no legitimate expectation of privacy at a meeting with coworkers in which her termination was discussed