Renteria

MEMORANDUM *

Renteria argues that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy inside the *856 stash house because it was his workplace under O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 719 , 107 S.Ct. 1492 , 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987). In contrast to the psychiatrist in O’Con-nor, Renteria does not allege that he used the stash house as his workplace for any length of time, that he had ever been there prior to the date of his arrest, nor that he kept personal items there. A defendant who uses an apartment for a few hours to package cocaine and demonstrates no personal connection to the residence does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy there. See Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 91 , 119 S.Ct. 469 , 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998).

Renteria also argues that even if he did not have an expectation of privacy in the entire stash house, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the toilet tank because it was a closed container used to store his personal belongings — comparable to a suitcase, valise, purse, or footlocker. See United States v. Fultz, 146 F.3d 1102, 1105 (9th Cir.1998). However, given that appellant does not assert an ownership interest in the toilet tank itself, nor contend that…