3. Jack Frost, a police officer in Minnesota, went to an apartment building to investigate a tip from a confidential informant. The informant said that he had walked by the window of a ground-floor apartment and had observed people putting white powder into bags. The officer looked in the same window through a gap in the closed blind and observed the bagging operation for several minutes. He then notified headquarters, which began preparing affidavits for a search warrant while he returned to the apartment building. A search of the apartment pursuant to a warrant revealed cocaine residue on the kitchen table and plastic baggies. Frost identified Able, Baker, and Carter as the three people he had observed placing the powder into baggies. The police later learned that while Able was the lessee of the apartment, Baker and Carter lived in Chicago and had come to the apartment for the sole purpose of packaging the cocaine. Baker and Carter had never been to the apartment before and were only in the apartment for approximately 2 hours. In return for the use of the apartment, Baker and Carter had given Able one-eighth of an ounce of the cocaine.

3A. You are the defense attorney for Baker and Carter. In a post-Rakas environment, what is your best argument that Baker and Carter have standing to contest the officer's search of the apartment (i.e., when he "peeped" into the window?)? Why or Why Not?

3B. You are the prosecuting attorney. In a post-Rakas environment, what is your best argument as prosecutor that Baker and Carter do not have standing to contest the officer's search?