searched by police in a hotel room rented by tolbert forefront of the facts of this case for the most part are accurately set forth in the district court's opinion after a fight with his girlfriend colbert to try to rent a room at the residence inn in south bend indiana however mr colbert wasn't allowed to run through because he didn't have a credit card so there's there's a little bit it may not matter me and i guess he's told he sa kind of in a horse you type fashion with with separate independent buildings so here's my problem with this you know he winds up running the room through the friend through dixon and dixon doesn't hand over this probably as far as he's concerned irrelevant piece of paper about the no party policy but but the fact is that the hotel does seem to me to reserve the right to evict people for  clerk actually logged any calls or complaints that she had received the she had received from any people anybody at the hotel in this particular case there with there was only one instance  hotel it's a no smoking they do have a sliding door with the patio area and they have been there now smoking on the patio area apparently too close to close to the building where the smoke went up went your argument is the second time there's a problem she's not free to leave the desk because there's nobody else around middle of the night and she's getting complaints from people so she asks the officers was she she came down to the room at about eleven o'clock i know i know i'm trying to move ahead i'm trying to say they eventually the police come and she testifies that she instructed them to kick out the occupants of room nine twelve if they refused to leave arrest them for trespassing and your theory seems to be that she can't back that up by giving the police officers the room passkey which she dies that's how they get in you know a knock on the door or they use the master key or whatever kind of key it is she just gives him the key it's one of those magnetic things i'm sure and then they look around the room which is of course you know they figure well she's the guy's being evicted we should take his stuff down that's when they see the bag with the cocaine in the top right and so i'm trying to figure out what point have they overstepped the line when they walk into the room when she sends them up stairs when they walk into the not following following this the same type of a logic that you get in cases like minnesota versus olsen someone staying where the police come with a warrant to search and and are looking for a murder suspect say i don't i don't know is if she could actually enter the room unless there was maybe some type of emergency that was going on i think that their hotel policy was to to to actually call the rumor or go to the room the whole point is that there was never any notice or warnings ever given i mean when she went i understand that and i'm trying to figure out so let's take that as a baseline i don't think anybody says they're wise because no one's relying on this piece of paper jackson sign so the argument has to be that somehow the fourth amendment imposes a notice requiring men before a person can be evicted from a hotel room and by the way i'm at least personally not worried about the fact that he isn't the one who rented it you know sometimes they'll be two or three friends staying in a hotel room seems like they all have an occupancy interest in it but that this notice idea if the hotel is saying we're not trying to go in to search we're just going in because you're being a pest and we have decided we you know you're not the kind of guest we want if they were permitted to actually let's assume that they the police were were permitted to enter the room to effect these people and the whole point about the police entry into the room is is they determined almost immediately i mean we're talking about a hotel room we're not talking fifteen to thirty seconds they know nobody's there the room is is essentially clean there's the bed has not been been slept in there's three great goose vodka bottles empty bottles there are some  cigarettes in the ashtray that's it and they had completed their entire purpose of going in there to look for people with it to look for people to have it right and then they testify since she saying kick them out when they decide that they'll take property left in the room right down to the front desk that's what gets them into the bathroom in the duffel bag which and the whole point about that is is that the this is something that the police took upon themselves i mean the hotel clerk never asked them to to go secure secure the room secure the contents to do anything other than just pick doing that that tolbert has the right to be there to expect privacy correct and just because he's there but he's not dixon who i would say  our position is that society would use someone who has had an opportunity to run a room someone else in the only reason is that that this guy couldn't do it himself is it have a credit card doesn't matter and that's if you do have the right to act according to the sign and statement right and that's something i think that's included on the the the warnings that are on the back of hotel rooms that we see honor my name is john the trays of come here representing united states and asking that this court uphold the judgment of the district court and i think that this this decision kind of hinges on the standard of review that discord applied to the issue of whether or not the expectation of privacy in the room was reasonable not just that he had a subjective expectation privacy but that it whether it was reasonable and that's the clearly erroneous standard that this court used in krakow and i also like to mention that i think every other  court has found that a hotel motel guest that has been there to do that the expectation of privacy has evaporated at that point and goes off and runs an errand and susan is the one who's there and she's not on the check and people for the most innocent reasons do this sort of things so i i don't think there's much to that part of the problem i guess your idea is that the minute the intent to of it is formulated in the mind of the hotel clerk whether or not the occupant of the room knows about it they've lost their reasonable expectation of privacy well that's what the taken into custody and the there was no notice at all given that under those the minnesota statute there was no no that's required under that similarly under the indiana statutes there is no indiana corresponding indiana statute what there was in minnesota i went to great lengths to try to find something even called the association of hotels and motels of indiana or something they were to say there's no notice required for an addiction it's another thing to say that the police get to enter the room sweep it not just for people but for items which doesn't really have anything to do that the hotel doesn't use the police to take a duffel bag out of the room and typically the hotel would not use the police to do that so so i think i think it's important not conflate too many things here well that's true the police were acting with the authority that the hotel had at that time once the person said that did once they make the decision to evict the person they have the  live believe and but in in this case the officers were in the room and it's not just a typical room that has a bed and a bathroom this was a studio apartment with i think a kitchen and so the officers did a sweep the officers noticed that there was a bag there and the officers decided to as they were leaving decided to take the bag as a favor to occupant i suppose and the person up front thinking that whoever was going to come back would want this now specifically was that did that exceed what she had asked them to do well she asked them  evict the people normally when people are a victim they take their property with them and in this case they were just providing that function i would say that  motel room certainly i mean this is this was not the type of police conduct upon which the well that exclusionary rule apply it would apply because they're not doing anything in bad faith they're just trying to do somebody a favor and they happen in the process to see in plain view this crack ok well they're implicitly enforcing the state's criminal tr invokes those laws right they are engaged in a police function and then they turn the bag inside out when they get back to the police station and find all the rest of the stuff in it they don't stop with what they see in plain view yes  and that i think was probably my i don't think there's any problem with the plain view because if he was there where he was supposed to be was it was immediately obvious to him but when they get the bag back to the police station should they have gotten it a search warrant kind of like the officers did in procmail they went and got a search warrant right and the bag was in their custody but the officers i think that that is harmless error because the court concluded based on the p s r that that when the officer looked in the bag he saw a crack on page seventy of the transcript officer baer says he saw two balls he doesn't say crack but he says two balls of cocaine balls of cocaine  now as far as rummaging around in the bag where they found the other cocaine possibly there's a problem with that and the district court didn't address that issue but even if that was exclud there is even suppressed evidence can be used at sentencing and that was the only thing that was used for he pled guilty to two possession with intent to distribute in excess of twenty eight grams of cocaine base or crack what they found on the top of the bag so any suppression of what else was found in the bag marijuana wasn't used it was just the cocaine that was was found in there and officer brick said he did have to move where he couldn't get back in because that is an issue that would be ineffective  the record isn't clear on that your honor the only thing that's clear is they left everybody whipping out the sliding door something maybe i don't really know what went on and maybe they didn't but whatever it was there was the complaint well we couldn't have gotten back in there where they took the bag or not now maybe they would've let embers and weld and the officers were there to evict the people the officers also said that they made a lot of noise when they were approaching the place because they were hoping the people would leave and they wouldn't when officer bear came to the hotel to respond to the dispatch at that point the the the hotel clerk did not want them effected he expressed that we don't have to keep coming back here to tell courland the guy had been evacuated there was an order of diction from a court the police kept on coming back and for a period of two weeks trying to find him and and that's when they had eventually were able to