delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Bryan James Redlich (Redlich) appeals from an order of the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, entered on March 28, 2003, denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a *477 warrantless search of a home he occupied as a party guest. We affirm. ¶2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Redlich’s motion to suppress.

BACKGROUND, STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

¶3 Redlich’s appeal stems from the same facts as State v. Smith, 2004 MT 234, 322 Mont. 466, 97 P.3d 567. We need not recite the facts and standard of review here; instead we refer the reader to our opinion in Smith. The only relevant difference is that upon entering the apartment, the officers found Redlich in a bedroom rather than in the bathroom, where they found Smith. Redlich was charged with Unlawful Transactions with Children and Underage Possession of Alcohol. Like Smith, Redlich filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the apartment. Redlich appeals the denial of said motion.

¶4 Based on the same rationale as we set forth in ¶¶ 8-11 of Smith, we affirm the District Court. The District Court did not err by denying Redlich’s motion to suppress. Redlich did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the police in the common areas of the apartment, and thus did not having standing to challenge the search.

¶5 Affirmed.