Smith v. State, 284 Ga. 17, 21 (3) ( 663 SE2d 142) (2008).State v. Carter, 299 Ga. App. 3, 5 ( 681 SE2d 688) (2009) "Given that [Smith] had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the room[] searched, he was not `aggrieved' by the search within the meaning of . . . the Fourth Amendment and, thus, lacked standing to contest the legality of the search."

See OCGA § 17–5–30(a)(1) (“A defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the court ... to suppress as evidence anything so obtained on the grounds that ... [t]he search and seizure without a warrant was illegal.”). This is merely another way of arguing that Lee lacks standing to challenge the search of the safe. See State v. Carter, 299 Ga.App. 3, 5–6, 681 S.E.2d 688 (2009). But because Lee was staying in the room, she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room and the safe within it, and can assert that she was aggrieved by the search within the meaning of OCGA § 17–5–30(a) and the Fourth Amendment.

“ ‘The burden is on the defendant to show that he has standing to contest the alleged violation, i.e., that he has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched.’ ” State v. Carter, 299 Ga.App. 3, 4, 681 S.E.2d 688 (2009). The evidence shows that apartment Z1 was leased to a third party, and there was no evidence of how long Appellant had been in the apartment or whether he was an overnight guest.

Smith, 284 Ga. at 21 (3), 663 S.E 2d 142.Smith, 284 Ga. at 21 (3), 663 S E.2d 142; accord Statev.Carter, 299 Ga. App. 3, 5, 681 S.E 2d 688 (2009).SeeWilliamsv.State, 301 Ga. 60, 61, 799 S.E.2d 779, 780 (2017)

Because appellant failed to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the hotel room, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress. See United States v. Carr, 939 F.2d 1442, 1446 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy since he failed to present any evidence that he was an overnight guest of the registered guest); State v. Carter, 681 S.E.2d 688, 690-91 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (holding defendant did not have reasonable expectation of privacy in the registered hotel guests room since he was merely an invitee or social guest and did not have dominion or control over the rooms); Armour v. State, 762 N.E.2d 208, 213-14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy where there was no evidence he was an invited guest by the registered guest but was merely present in the room); State v. Gonzalez, 85 P.3d 711, 714 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004) (holding defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room he occupied due to the lack of evidence that he was an invited overnight guest of the registered occupant); see also United States v. Baskin, 424 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2005) (holding defendant failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the registered guest's hotel room); Lyons v. State, 942 So. 2d 247, 250 (Miss.