To prevail on a suppression motion alleging a violation of privacy rights under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Appellant must demonstrate (1) a proprietary or possessory interest in the premises searched; and, (2) a subjective expectation of privacy in the premises searched at the time of the search and that such an expectation is objectively reasonable; i.e., the privacy expectation is legitimate. Commonwealth v. Winfield, 835 A.2d 365, 368 (Pa. Super. 2003) citing Commonwealth v. Torres, 764 A.2d 532, 542 (2001).  The constitutional legitimacy of an expectation of privacy is not dependent on the subjective intent of the individual asserting the right. Commonwealth v. Brundidge, 590 A.2d 302, 307 (Pa. Super. 1991) citingHudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 525-526 n. 7 (1984).  As Justice Powell stated, “it is not enough that an individual desired or anticipated that he would be free from governmental intrusion.” Rather, he concluded, “[t]he ultimate question is whether one’s claim to privacy from governmental intrusion is reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 151-152 (1978) (Powell, J., concurring).