A defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a residence that a no-contact order barred him from entering. Detectives in Medford, Oregon had probable cause to believe Schram was the robber of a local bank. A records check showed there was a no-contact order prohibiting Schram from contacting his girlfriend. Without a warrant, detectives entered the girlfriend’s residence, found Schram inside, and arrested him. They then obtained a warrant and searched the girlfriend’s home. Schram was indicted for bank robbery and moved to suppress evidence obtained during the search. The district court denied the motion. Schram pleaded guilty and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. Held: Affirmed. A person may not claim his Fourth Amendment rights have been violated if that person lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched. An individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy if: (1) the individual demonstrates a subjective expectation of privacy in the place being searched, and (2) this subjective expectation is one that society accepts as objectively reasonable. In Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 439 U.S. 128, 143 n.12, the Supreme Court clarified that a privacy interest is not reasonable when one’s presence in a place is “wrongful.” Like a burglar, trespasser, or squatter, an individual violating a court no-contact order is on property that the law prevents him from entering. Thus, even if the girlfriend consented to Schram’s presence, his entry of her home was unlawful. Schram had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence and could not challenge its search.