Consider the following examples and explain whether you think the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- A person who is a short-term guest at a friend's home objects to a warrantless entry by the police into that home.
In Georgia v. Randolph (2006) the court held that when one resident in a house denies police consent to search, they can't search the property based on another resident's consent. So the problem, I'd say, would lie in determining exactly what a "short-term" guest would be. The rationale in Georgia v. Randolph was that "co-equal roommates" can't speak for each other. This was a departure from its reasoning in previous cases. But this example is not talking about "co-equal roommates," and clearly property owners (or even rentors) should be able to make decisions regarding their own homes, including granting consent to search. So I would say, based on the logic of the cases previous to Georgia v. Randolph, which weren't totally overturned by the 2006 decision, that, with the consent of the owner, police could search a house regardless of the short-term guests' objections.
Beyond his own person, he lacks any standing to protest a search of the house or its contents. However, depending on the length of his stay, the nature and conditions of his stay (is he there for a party? A week? Has he rented a room?) he may have indeed have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
But in the example you give-he has no standing to protest.