In People v. Tejada (81 N.Y.2d 861), the New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant who has automatic standing to challenge the seizure of illegal drugs in a room in which he has no personal expectation of privacy does not have automatic standing to challenge the seizure by the police of other items of contraband found in the room, since the narrow exception to the standing requirement is justified only where a criminal possessory charge is rooted solely in a statutory presumption attributing possession to a defendant. Criminal charges arising out of ordinary constructive possession remain subject to the general rule requiring a person seeking to challenge the legality of a search to establish that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy. The Court held that the "unfairness [that the automatic standing rule of People v. Millan was designed to correct] is not present in cases where a defendant is charged with constructive possession on the basis of evidence other than the statutory presumption" (id., at 863).