Does a party have standing to challenge the legality of a warrantless search?

Appellant's leasehold interest in the property did not necessarily establish standing to challenge the legality of the warrantless search. "[W]hile the defendant's possessory interests in either the premises or the seized goods are relevant, they are not dispositive." United States v. Nadler, 698 F.2d 995, 999 (9th Cir.1983).

The district court properly overruled appellant's objections to questions on cross examination designed to determine "whether [the appellant] has given dominion and control of that property to others that might, in fact, dissipate from that expectation of privacy." RT at 22. Appellant's counsel frustrated this inquiry by instructing appellant to refuse to answer. Appellant cannot simply refuse to answer questions on standing he considers prejudicial; such testimony, if properly objected to, would not be admissible against appellant on the issue of guilt. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 394 (1968).