An individual challenging a police search of workplace areas beyond his own internal office must generally show some personal connection to the places searched and the materials seized. The government obtained a warrant to search the corporate office and off-site storage facility of SDI Future Health, Inc. Evidence seized resulted in charges that SDI, its president and part-owner, and the officer/part-owner engaged in health care fraud and related offenses. Defendants sought to suppress the evidence but the government claimed they did not have the requisite expectation of privacy in the areas searched that would permit them to raise the challenge. The Court of Appeals held that a person seeking to assert a Fourth Amendment violation in such a case must generally show some personal connection to the places searched and the materials seized; and that the strength of such personal connection will specifically be determined with reference to the following factors: (1) whether the item seized is personal property or otherwise kept in a private place separate from other work material; (2) whether the defendant had custody or immediate control of the item when officers seized it; and (3) whether the defendant took precautions on his own behalf to secure the place searched or things seized from any interference without his authorization.