Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): reasonableness standard in Laney v. State, 379 Md. 522, 842 A.2d 773 (2004), within the context of lawful possession of premises. In Laney, the mortgagor of a home that had been foreclosed upon challenged several warrantless searches of the house where he had personal property. Id. at 527-28, 842 A.2d at 777. The searches occurred after title in the home had passed to the Department of Veteran Affairs (“V.A.”) — - the original guarantor of the mortgage. Id. Laney claimed that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house under the Fourth Amendment despite the fact that title had passed to the V.A. because the V.A.’s ownership rights in the house were inferior to his “possessory and private rights” in the house. Id. at 534, 842 A.2d at 780. This Court determined 6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hunyady, 409 F.3d 297, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that squatter in home did not have standing to challenge search of house where he was staying (B) holding that squatter had no standing to challenge search of abandoned apartment which he had occupied solely for the business of packing for distribution for narcotics (C) holding that a squatter had no standing to challenge search of vacant home he frequented for the sole purpose of engaging in drugrelated business transactions  (D) holding that squatter had no standing to challenge search of abandoned house where he was staying (E) holding that squatter had no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore no fourth amendment standing to challenge search of abandoned structure
Output (English): holding that squatter had no standing to challenge search of abandoned apartment which he had occupied solely for the business of packing for distribution for narcotics