that is pressing the merits judge king never got to the merits judge hearing ruled that there are avenues you know there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore we didn't we do not have to reasonable expectation standing as it were judge king specifically reserved the merits so if we win here the relief i'm asking for is return us to the court and let us then address the fourth amendment merits she never got there but the second answer to your specific question is there was no small smoke until the door was opened so we have quite a different situation here clear from the credit card company the w w w dot hotels twell they called up and told him this is a stolen credit card well with the case we must now determine whether a registered occupant of a motel room retains a legitimate expectation of point out several rough references why that's not the case first of all when the police arrived and the hotel manager lama and knocked on the door what did he say first of all lamas not the police knocked on the door and when wireless knocked on the door he told cooney he wanted to talk about the bill that is not an affirmative act of get crucial question if they had but assuming they had a way to get into the room consistent with the fourth amendment i'd like heat up problems obviously but they didn't know that at the point of the entry point the question is did they have a right to enter  a reasonable expectation of privacy and that condition subsequent has two parts the first part is that they have to the hotel has to determine somehow that the guy shouldn't be in there in the first place he's wrongfully in there that's the first part of the condition starts with the second part is that it's got to be communicated and there's got to be some affirmative act of dominion in consistent with the continued possession of the room by the occupant and if that second the first part in my mind is questionable and it's questionable because they were continuing to talk about payment terms and it was an addiction situation the second part is completely missing because the record is clear that there was no affirmative act of dominion inconsistent with who knows continued occupancy of the hotel room so that the conditions subsequent the legitimate expectation of privacy remains that's the analysis that you have to apply under what is liberties and what its legitimate expectation of privacy well there's two parts how could he have had a legitimate expectation of privacy given the manner in which he occupied an unoccupied that room because he thought the what that he thought he could use this card he'd used it befor card we can assume that but she soon knew that so the same analysis would apply how could he have any kind of subjective expectation if you knew full well that he gave a stolen credit card to get in there in the first place as a burglar have any expectation of privacy you know that to the court made a finding of that there's no question that there were he had to involve back up documentation but at the same time he had a valid card that was enough to get in the car  cards valid because they've used it before and it worked the account was in effect the count had not been watching as part of count promises under any circumstances to continue to honor a card when the authorized person on the account is dead well he was obviously wrong in his legal analysis as a layman here and and the stake of law well i'm not arguing that it was a valid use of this credit card and i knew full well when i purchased that home that i was in there by a false statement on the mortgage application so therefore i came home when the police come one day in barged into the home without a warrant i want to challenge that have a fourth amendment privacy interests i don't think that that's situation is distinguishable while it is because at that point you do find the difference between somebody who's home and a motel room i don't think it's a characteristic of a motel room it's quite quite clear well it took us to it was a stretch for the constitution even recognized motel rooms at first are similar to houses for those for the purposes of expectations of privacy that's the difference here i mean i don't see much difference between your client little respect and a burglar well i went into great length in the reply brief to seven distinctions on the fact that the difference is that he didn't sneak in the window he went to the front desk give him a credit card stayed there for two days he and i through the process it never really had the backup false backup documentation that's the problem i have and i can i can get around that and that's part of the facts but that doesn't control the fourth amendment analysis and i would suggest to you that the that there is no under the law there is no particular difference between a hotel room and a private home society prepared to accept this expectation of privacy as reasonable apparently the fused the panel says yes to that precise question on friday and the reason is there's a way to deal with this problem in the way obviously you can't have a situation where people actually in her hotel rooms and they can do that with impunity and you can never get them out the law has an answer to this and though the answer is this condition subsequent two parts first of all you've got to make it just termination the hotel manager run the police and number two what he stated when he knocked on the door you know you'd like to discuss payment of the bill that's likewise inconsistent with completely consistent with this can be continued hundred eighty five as we must now determine whether a registered occupant of a motel room retains a legitimate expectation of privacy based on the unconfirmed report that the credit card was stolen the focus is on the word registered occupant they're about to use to registered in the hotel in his own true name here we don't have registration in any meaningful fashion we have a person approaching the hotel giving a false name a false address a false phone number a false company name and  do you think that it was really i'm confirmed it sounds like they have some pretty good additives that your honor it was a stolen card i do agree that there was evidence there was confirmation or at least a report from the website that they had confirmed from the card home holder that the charges were disputed and it was alleged to have been stolen about the court seemed to focus primarily on the actions taken by the hotel though to investigate it mentions that this was a rather inexperienced hotel manager who had no experience with this and based on that experience decided to defer to the hotel's policy regarding guests who overstayed their expiration term and said you know if we can go negotiate a term of payment then i will allow this person this day that i seems to want to go talk about the manager does determine that fraud has been committed and he believes the hotel will not be paid he does make the statement that he wants to go speak to the occupants about payment however that's equally consistent with being paid for the night or two that has already been spent rather than allowing him to stay for the full term that he's already registered for he doesn't ask the police to accompany him to the room which indicates a more confrontational rather than negotiation mode of speaking to the person in the room just want to get my money or i want to see if they can pay for the rest of it urges that even it's not even necessary for us to reach your i believe because the threshold issue before this court is different i e whether there was ever a a right in the first instance i don't believe that this court has to reach that issue i think the issue of investigation and its mission to terminate the occupancy comes into play once this court decides that someone has registered and has attained a right to privacy at because they could not obtain permission from the card holder who was dead the fact that the address on file at bank of america does not match the address provided to the hotel he actually doesn't know the person was dead that right they just they can't obviously the person didn't answer the phone because they're dead that was something the police determined later however it was something that mr coon i knew at the time and he admitted that he was using this dead woman's credit card and that he did forge these notes purporting to be from the the credit card was used to reserve the room there was not yet a determination that the credit card was going to be used to pay for that room and that the question of payment had been unsettled here we have ample proof undisputed proof the mr tonight intended to pay for the room with his credit card he took great lengths or went to great lengths to make sure he was able to do that when he first presented the credit card the hotel said you can't use the less you have the card holders authorization so he left created authorization the number one forged on behalf of the dead credit card holder and brought it back he was then told well you need the second form in order to use this credit card he went created a second fortunate on behalf of the credit card holder that's that e r one fifty five it's the actual note that says the charges on this room should be placed on this card and i prince of peace you know a panel honor them at that time he also gave the fabricated manufactured driver's license which he admitted he manufactured he inserted the man's picture although prin the upon was a woman he put a false address and he gave that to corroborate his fraud that this woman was alive and authorizing him to use the card every time i checked out of a motel room or hotel room i said you want to keep it on the same card and that's your point the actual method of payment hasn't been decided until that moment but here it's different on these facts indeed and i think especially in the fact in about two years that they used an internet reservation i think it's become a common occurrence that someone making reservation through the internet uses whatever's most immediately available and that's not necessarily how they pay for the room or the item once the the payment is requested point three point three is that the court has mentioned the investigative techniques used by this hotel manager differed drastically from about tuesday here we have someone who had experience with credit card fraud he said in his experience what happens when a card company discovers the fraud is that the hotel companies charge  back in that they receive a loss because of the fraudulent activity and because of that he investigated he called the d m v he confirmed the license was fake he called bank of america confirmed that the information in their files did not match the information so the card holder with the bank of america and that they had frozen the account because they could not confirm the authorization from the card holder on that he made the conclusion this is fraud he called the police who reported the fraud and they came to assist him in discussing it with the  tenants now it is true the statement is that he wanted to discuss payments in addition to going up and talking to him about the fraud that had been conducted but again that is equally consistent with wanting to be paid for the nice already spent rather than allowing them to stay in the future and incidentally the record does reflect at the time of the hearing mr can i get minutes the reason he had this card in the first place is because he didn't have any money so it is not the case that mr quinn i could have pulled out a couple thousand dollars to pay for his thirty stay that he had registered for it's simply a case where he was there on stolen credit card and that was the only way he could pay for that was just thirty days make a difference as as opposed to set at about one or two i mean that's fairly long i think your honor had he been a true registered occupants of the room it might but i think it would encourage criminals to be more devious in prague only renting a hotel room they just extended their stay so as to create or fabricate a right of privacy it frankly is arbitrary because he had no intention of paying for them so he could easily escape an entire year just to give himself more protection that he hadn't truly earned by registering as as a true guest at the hotel what about mr harris's point in terms of if you jump over the first issue or a few lives on the first issue what about the smallest smoke coming out of the room ya know that i believe we have to concede the court did not to get hotels and i think some food over the previous three weeks under this arrangement he had with the brother and apparently there's no indication of peanut was not me the card was still exclusionary rule would of course not avail those who by virtue of their wrongful presence cannot invoke the privacy the crevasses search and if you go back to that i mean to suggest that cotton not only is wrong but ridiculous and explainable ocean pay for the right but the question is was the hotel going to get paid or not i don't know what is other i don't know what's the got a plea think anybody with with an i q over room temperature could infer that he was going to pay for this