there are a number of hurdles thrusted clear in this case and the st question is whether the person protective sweep of the hotel room was lawfully justified and let me start by saying reasonable is a protective suite is an issue a lot to be reviewed to know and similarly the question whether officers were in hot pursuit of mr ross ultimately is a question of law to be reviewed no go and ask you a quick question so you say that's the  st question it seemed to me the st question might be whether you have standing to challenge either search so can you help us with standing for what i what i call th amendment standing yeah  well specifically with the question of abandonment ok we can take them one at a time to talk to me st about abandonment with respect to st search he runs from the hotel your brief says look he was never coming back and so why isn't that under our precedent abandonment well because ok the question of abandonment is a question of intent but mr ross had already left the hotel room when he spotted officers and he decided to flee because he knew he was likely to be arrested so the question is at the time that he left the hotel room what was his intent so his departure from the hotel room was quite corner emmett gets out of the car the car still running the keys are still in the ignition i think he runs away cops chase him for a while they come back to the car and we say that car has been abandoned right well this is not the case where let's say you may have a  f a car chase and the suspect drives or bridge throws it rolls down the window throws a firearm out the window into the river we can be fairly certain he had no intention to retrieve that firearm because it would be pretty much impossible other cases that we've decided deal primarily with vehicles or personal property left at public spaces but this is a hotel room for which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy and it's just like his home is that your argument yes your honor and that's and that's part of our argument yes and at the time he left the hotel room he it was still prior to checked out time so he he likely under these facts intended to return to the hotel scene that's that's where i think we're all having a problem and it seems to me you're wanted to have it both ways but they're stuck to the protect this week at nine am you're wanting to say they knew  wasn't come back that would tell room it was absurd for them to go back to the hotel room and with respect to the lebanon am search based upon the hotel's consent you're saying no no the kotel can't consent my client had to manage his possessory interest in the room i don't know how can i reconcile those two positions well i think the law permits it because the question for the protective sweep is whether the officers themselves had an objectively reasonable belief that he had  returned to the hotel room and in that case of course the undisputed facts that he fled across the interstate the officers chased after them they lost sight of him and it was merely because they had not  left the hotel room guarded that they had nothing more than a hunch that perhaps he had returned to the hotel room so the legitimacy of the protected suite depends basically on whether the officers belief room at that point with police still in the parking lot at that time at eleven o'clock no with police in the parking lot no and then the question devolves another question develops at that time at eleven o'clock whether they consent given by the hotel manager was truly voluntary even before that whether at eleven o'clock or eleven all want to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the premises right and we say that he  did well now why is that that would that would be contra to pretty much what every other circuit a sad right but every other circuit did not consider the application of this florida statute which prescribes and circums d the relationship the rights and the responsibilities and obligations between us you see here's my problem with the statute i think the statute basically says that you've got a defense to a misdemeanor prosecution if you overstay your welcome but it doesn't give you an affirmative right to stay and stay and stay and stay and stay so long as the hotel doesn't frontally kick you out well the right is not unlimited but there is a right and in fact this area the law is highly regulated it's not it's not unusual in any sense because the relationship between landlords and tenants is is is is very frequently by let's say the drawn by state law let's say the police don't go in don't to protect a sweep they just set up in the parking lot waiting for him to come back he doesn't come back you've already said he's not going to come back to the police the parking lot what's the hotel going to do it that point they go into the room what they should do is follow the law of florida which is at least attempt to give some notice to the registered guest in this case the registered guess was that mr wilson so they had her number  on the on the on the registration card they made no attempt to call her under the florida law if she had been reached she could have come and vacated the room and taken all the potential out of the room that's the case  case well let me let me let me begin by there are several steps st the hotel hotel has generally get as much protection as a deli and then in the minnesota writing if you if you were at the hotel room i think that the cases that you're referring to someone run at the hotel room not in their name but in the name of an alias which is really the person right at the hotel room but what i'm asking is in this case let me see it wilson right at the hotel room b y r d now that case actually concerned a rental car and the car was b being driven by an unauthorized driver the police stopped the car and as to his standing the supreme court said he did have stand even though he was not authorized because he could have been a nd barely under property theory or in that case he did standing and in this case after she ari the claim of standing is even stronger because a hotel room gets greater protection then than a motor vehicle so i think the question is answered in the bird case isn't it possible though that so even if if bird gets you beyond the hypothetical that sort of automatically because you didn't rent a hotel room in your own name you lose standing under the love in a what i'll call the eleven on one theory that other courts have expressly adopted that your guy's connection to this hotel room is pretty ten jentzsch all right i mean it's just a search wilson says the room's not even rented in his name it's not a long term stay like a lease this is a one night stay in a hotel room rented under someone else's name that just seems like a pretty ten general connection why not in those circumstances agree with every other circuit that's concluded that at one thousand one hundred and one the reasonable expectation of privacy vanishes well as i said number one the cases no cases interpreted as far as that you but am i wrong by the way does this does the statute exist within the framework of a provision that allows for a misdemeanor prosecution i want yes you do your honor in perpetuity as long as the hotel fails to rig to satisfy the conditions for reject me all right let me let me take you back to the protective sweep that seems to be the police the law enforcement this case articulated two reasons one he might your client might have been in there and nd someone else might have been there that posed a danger the rooms not rented in his name it's right in someone else's name why wouldn't it be reasonable to do a protective sweep just to make sure they know whether there is someone else or not in the room they don't know when they arrive on the scene they understand he has a violent background has a felony record and is could be considered armed and dangerous upon the approach to him so why would it be reasonable even if they think he's in the woods it seems to me that here your question presupposes that a protect the room was rented by someone else they know that right yes ok so i don't think that's a mirror much but they had the name in the phone number of the person and they could have done some type of investigation see if that person had a criminal record  they did not so they didn't come up with an articulate fact that they that if they thought that person was armed and dangerous what was the base its it was up to the government present to present the evidence to show that they had comes after checkout time to clean the room that's because the hotel manager did not enter the requirements of florida statute i'm way past my time i'll try to come back thank you  good morning your honors may please the court jordan learn for you on behalf of the united states there are a number of issues in this case are not connected unless the court would like me to start elsewhere i'm going to start what i think was the most logical place to begin at the top with is whether mr ross had standing to challenge either search the district court determine that there was standing to challenge the protective suite correct that is correct she did during during the the hearing and our position would be that to the extent that our position is clearly that abandoned the room when he took flight with no intent at that moment to return or to have really what matters is what the whether or not in the end it had manifested by the time the officers conducted the protective did you did you make that argument to the district court no i don't think we framed it in terms of in management we did suggest that he may not have standing and so our precedent seems a little goofy on this frankly to me but we've got cases saying that  for th amendment standing purposes to question whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy that's something the government can waive right but there's also this case sparks that seems to suggest where the failure of standing is like an ex post failure an abandonment based failure that that runs to article three right frankly that seems totally wrong to me but that kind of is what it is is that how you're sort of before us saying yeah abandonment as to the st search even though we didn't argue it that's certainly part of it i think even if it's not jurisdictional i think it is something that this court can consider whether or not the defendant had standing i do you don't i do not disagree with your honor that this court's precedent was dating sparks didn't exactly consider standing in the amendment law th minute standing that is not jurisdictional but with abandonment it's slightly different and this is what judge rosenbaum talks and the sparks opinion is it's a subjective understanding right the defendant subjectively abandoned his privacy and his property interests and a place that can be a car but it also can be a squat in the circuits president a home or residence that there is no injury in fact there because he doesn't even have a subjective property interest he doesn't have a subjective privacy interest he's gone he's left he's not coming back and because there's no subjective interest there's no injury and the circumstance and so i don't think that at least in terms the supreme court has ever passed on the question in terms of abandonment whether or not the defendant has injury which is a requirement for article three standing cousin those records all also said that when you have a hotel room you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in there just like you would have in your home abandon your home absolutely well that's what the court held in winchester right winchester was slightly different because there that the district court had made the records in fact finding and so they were reviewing for clear error whether or not he had abandoned his residence but it was his residence it was his dwelling and he was a fugitive he knew he was a fugitive he had been attempting to invade law enforcement for a long time so if he ran from the police who were most saw him coming to his home the police could go on and do his home to conduct their protect own i think would be a tougher case your honor but your home is slightly different than a hotel room when you know your interest in the hotel room is set to expire at a set period of time and you voluntarily depart with no intention to return right i mean that the eleven am checkout time after that at least as far as every circuit as i can tell has held you don't have a reason expectation of privacy and ross knew that he had i mean the room was rented for one night it wasn't even in his name so he departed and you know with no intent to ever return to that room now what about your adversary's reliance on the statute i do not agree with my counsel's interpretation of the statue and i think that every florida hotel  management would disagree with that interpretation as well i think that jason you're probably right it lays out a framework specifically where that creates a defense of criminal trespass that's what it says towards the lower bottom of the statute is that if you give a notice in the defendant stays well then you can send a law enforcement officer in to arrest him for criminal trespass it doesn't say that if you don't comply with the statute the defendant can stay in perpetuity right and in fact i think what's important  law enforcement the conduct to protect the sure well i would say two things those ideas i think do seem a little contradictory but this the universe of information that the court considers and determining whether or not he abandoned the room and whether or not law enforcement had reason to believe he was in the room is slightly different so bantam it's kind of an objective question we consider the facts when you at the time as well as the facts that you know happened after the alleged abandonment to try and just turn what the defendant's intent was when we're looking at whether they had reason to believe or somebody else in the room were looking at what law enforcement knew at that very moment ten minutes after rasa departed and in this case they had seen him start to take off all over the highway now the district court found i think that age in england testimony was that he had started the process the st two lanes nothing in the record supports that they had seen him on all the way across the highway but anyways by the time they had made it there he was gone he was out of sight and they searched for about ten minutes  start to approach a vehicle that seemed to be headed in that he had presumably left behind property as well because there's no evidence in the record that he came out with any of his belongings or baggage that would indicate that he'd had taken it out of the room so i think based on that they had reason to believe in these extreme circumstances that he would have doubled back to the room now doesn't have to be they were absolutely certain right they just have to have a reason to think he would have gone back and entered but even if they didn't have a reason to think that ross had necessarily gone back there is the added element here that they knew somebody else's name was on the room and they knew that that person presumably i think it's reasonable that when law enforcement knows somebody is names on a room see somebody else depart the room but not the person who's names on the room testify that they had gotten the hotel registration when they got the key to go into the room they'd also been testimony that as soon as they got to the hotel so even before rosmer from the room they had checked with the person at the desk to see if ross's name was on any of the rooms the the hotel he was staying in a room that somebody else had rented and then anyways i think it's reasonable to assume when you've got someone else's name on the hotel that they can assume that there's a person in there that could pose a threat to to the agents executing the arrest warrant and the circumstance i don't think it's reasonable to say well law enforcement you got the name you to stop what you're doing you to call them you need to run a background check i mean that completely undermines the purpose of the protective sweep doctrine which is into the in these kind of tense volatile circumstances to allow law enforcement when they have reasonable suspicion that somebody else is present to conduct a just a brief protective sweep to make sure nobody is there also say that i don't think the agents subjective motivations are what matter it's what's objectively reasonable in this circumstance and it would be objectively reasonable for a agents executing arrest warrant to know that somebody else went into the room to believe that somebody else was in the room and you know having to justify protective sweep on that basis let me take you back to byrd and sporks because i'm still struggling a straight the age old question is the article three language in sparks dictum or a holding i it's necessary to the ruling with respect to whether or not the seizure of the phone was unreasonably long and that was the court's holding right they don't have standing they don't have jurisdiction to consider that question i'll give you that so it didn't berger race  at least in this case we're looking at the defendant subjective you know whether he had a subjective interest of privacy or property or possessory interest in the and then broom and he abandoned that and so therefore there's no injury in this case in a way that sort of seems like one hundred and eighty degrees wrong to me because the failure the nonexistence of a reasonable expectation of privacy on the front end like never had it never existed what are you talking about we say that's a th amendment that's a matter of th amendment substantive doctrine whereas if you had it and then you lost it later that is a matter of article three doesn't that seem kind of goofy well i don't it's a difficult question reconciling some of the language in the court's precedents i don't disagree with that i think right so they're part of this is a legal question you have an expectation of privacy a subjective one is that expectation of privacy reasonable i think when you considering you know reasonable and society's view i think when you're considering the nd question that subsumed under th amendment doctrine and so you can certainly have perhaps a reasonable experts i mean a society would seem reasonable but you subjectively don't actually have any interest in any interest privacy interests property interests in that area and so that's how it's kind of seek to distinguish and i gree it's a little inconsistent it's not entirely clear that's the best i can do for your honour's it seems to me that your friend over there would really wan focus on this for future cases because the government can waive a th amendment argument by not raising it in the court below but if it's article three you could walk in here today and say it was abandonment even though the district court never had to grapple with i don't disagree with your honor i would say though even if it's something that we could waive i think the court it's within the court's discretion to consider the issue it has been briefed here i don't think tough but i think consent setting aside abandonment we've got the hotel managers can sit here and i think really with that that you know is a very difficult for all for mr ross to overcome there's no so there's a court found it is a factual finding the nd search was voluntarily consented to you and then the st search even if the protective sweep was invalid was justified by never will discover it the cops just rogers made good facts finding so that is why i see that my time is winding down so unless the court has any further intent to return to the hotel room while the police were present certainly if he has been unable to discover that the police terminated their surveillance and all the coast was clear he certainly would have gone back to reclaim the truck and the belongings and his and in the premises so now the primary focus of the present supreme court is to emphasize the th amendment protects against unreasonable invasions of property interests in the car perturb case judge explained that property interests arise from positive law he defined profited law to mean democratically legitimate sources of law including property tort contract law and rights defined by legislative in ackermann's the legislative in act meant that is involved here is the florida statute so let me ask you this is it your position and this is not an original thought in talking about this case with my law clerks one of them said well if you look on the backs of hotel doors a lot of the time if you read the fine print a lot of the time it'll say in addition to like we can charge you some exorbitant rate it will also say and by the way if you overstay your welcome you're up you're on the hook for another night so does that mean that in states hotel chains whatever that used to put that sort of language on the back of a hotel room that you've got a continuing expectation of privacy it has to come time if that's the hotel door represents or comes from a statute i think probably the answer is yes i can't say definitively but status statute do create rights and do affect the duration of tenancies it seems to me if your client has a continuing expectation of another night at the hotel then he also has a expectation that their mates going to come in and clean the room for him for that night either way the maids coming in the room right i don't know i mean when i stay in hotels very frequently i put a sign on the door that says do not disturb you no he didn't do that before he ran across i ten well there's a but there's no evidence either way and where the government has a burden