Case Name: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRYAN JAMES REDLICH, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 2004-08-31
Citations: 322 Mont. 476
Docket Number: No. 03-391
Parties: STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRYAN JAMES REDLICH, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY, JUSTICES COTTER, WARNER, LEAPHART, NELSON and RICE concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 322
Pages: 476–477

Head Matter:
STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRYAN JAMES REDLICH, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 03-391.
Submitted on Briefs December 11, 2003.
Decided August 31, 2004.
2004 MT 235.
322 Mont. 476.
97 P.3d 1090.
For Appellant: Wendy Holton, Attorney at Law, Helena.
For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jim Wheelis, Assistant Attorney General, Helena; W. G. Gilbert, HI, City Attorney, Dillon.

Opinion:
JUSTICE REGNIER
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Bryan James Redlich (Redlich) appeals from an order of the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, entered on March 28, 2003, denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a warrantless search of a home he occupied as a party guest. We affirm. ¶2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Redlich's motion to suppress.
BACKGROUND, STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
¶3 Redlich's appeal stems from the same facts as State v. Smith, 2004 MT 234, 322 Mont. 466, 97 P.3d 567. We need not recite the facts and standard of review here; instead we refer the reader to our opinion in Smith. The only relevant difference is that upon entering the apartment, the officers found Redlich in a bedroom rather than in the bathroom, where they found Smith. Redlich was charged with Unlawful Transactions with Children and Underage Possession of Alcohol. Like Smith, Redlich filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the apartment. Redlich appeals the denial of said motion.
¶4 Based on the same rationale as we set forth in ¶ 8-11 of Smith, we affirm the District Court. The District Court did not err by denying Redlich's motion to suppress. Redlich did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the police in the common areas of the apartment, and thus did not having standing to challenge the search.
¶5 Affirmed.
CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY, JUSTICES COTTER, WARNER, LEAPHART, NELSON and RICE concur.