Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04173/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04173-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Brandon L. Walton
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4173

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Brandon L. Walton, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2006

Filed: June 30, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Brandon L. Walton pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession

of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He appeals from his

guilty plea conviction, contending that the district court1

 erred in denying his motion

to suppress evidence. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-4173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2006 Entry ID: 2063007
-2-

I. 

On March 3, 2005, Latisha Reeves checked into the Red Roof Inn in

Independence, Missouri. She paid cash in advance and indicated that she would be

the only occupant of the room. Kerec Grigsby, the night manager of the motel,

assigned Reeves to Room 131. 

That night, Grigsby received three complaints regarding a loud car stereo and

a man yelling and pounding on the door of Room 131. After the first two complaints,

Grigsby went outside and heard loud music coming from an automobile. He asked

the occupant, later identified as Walton, to turn the music down, and Walton

complied. After he returned to the lobby, Grigsby received a third complaint, this

time that the music was even louder. Grigsby called the police and went outside to

the parking lot, where he saw Walton enter Room 131. 

At approximately 4:25 a.m. on March 4, 2005, Officers Wyckoff and Long of

the Independence Police Department were dispatched to the Red Roof Inn on a

disturbance call. The dispatcher informed the officers that a man was outside the

motel yelling and knocking on the door of Room 131. Officer Wyckoff arrived at the

motel within about seven or eight minutes of the dispatch, and Officer Long arrived

a few minutes later. 

The officers went to the room and knocked on the door for about ten minutes.

They received no response, and they could hear no sound coming from the room.

Grigsby approached the officers while they were knocking. He told them that he had

received noise complaints and that he wanted the occupants to leave. Without being

asked, Grigsby retrieved the pass key from the front desk. When Grigsby returned,

Officer Wycoff knocked again and identified himself as the police. Grigsby unlocked

the door and tried to open it, but could not because the chain lock was engaged. 

Appellate Case: 05-4173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2006 Entry ID: 2063007
2

The Honorable John T. Maughmer, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for

the Western District of Missouri.

-3-

Reeves came to the door, and Officer Wyckoff identified himself as a police

officer and told her that he was responding to a call about a disturbance. Reeves

closed the door, unhooked the chain, and opened the door to the room. The officers

entered, and Officer Wyckoff asked whether there was anyone else in the room.

Reeves replied that there was not, but Officer Wyckoff saw a foot protruding from

underneath the corner of one of the beds. He lifted the mattress from the bed frame

and saw a man, later identified as Walton, lying on the floor. When instructed to

stand up, Walton did not move. Officer Wyckoff handcuffed him, helped him to his

feet, and sat him down on the other bed.

Officer Long told Officer Wyckoff that he had seen a gun as Officer Wyckoff

was lifting the mattress from the bed frame. Officer Wyckoff retrieved the loaded

.357 revolver and a plastic bag containing marijuana that was lying next to it. Officer

Wyckoff then checked underneath the other bed and found a loaded rifle. Reeves and

Walton were arrested for possession of marijuana.

Walton was charged with being a felon in possession of firearms. He moved

to suppress the physical evidence of the firearms found in the motel room. After a

hearing, the magistrate judge2

 recommended denying that motion. The district court

overruled Walton’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation in its entirety. Walton pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal

the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.

II.

We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo. United States v. Adams,

401 F.3d 886, 893 (8th Cir. 2005). We review the factual determinations for clear

Appellate Case: 05-4173 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/30/2006 Entry ID: 2063007
-4-

error, giving due weight to the inferences drawn by the district court and law

enforcement officials. Id.

Walton contends that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Reeves’s

motel room, and thus the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

 Whether a defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a motel room

depends upon factors such as whether he checked into or paid for the room and

whether he had the ability to control or exclude others’ use of the room. United

States v. Esquivias, 416 F.3d 696, 702 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Carter, 854

F.2d 1102, 1105-06 (8th Cir. 1988). A defendant challenging a search and seizure

occurring in the motel room of another must “demonstrate that he personally has an

expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable.”

Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998). A mere visitor, a person who is not an

overnight guest, usually lacks a rightful expectation of privacy when present in the

motel room of another. United States v. Sturgis, 238 F.3d 956, 958 (8th Cir. 2001).

See Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. at 91 (holding that a guest that is merely present

with the consent of the householder may not claim the protection of the Fourth

Amendment). 

Walton cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in Reeves’s motel

room. We agree with the magistrate judge that “the record is devoid of any indication

that defendant Walton was anything other than a visitor in Room 131–and perhaps

not a particularly welcome one at that.” Walton neither checked into nor paid for the

room. When Reeves checked in, she was alone, and she paid for the room in advance.

Although the room rate would have been the same whether there had been one or two

overnight guests, Reeves stated that she would be the only overnight occupant of the

room. Before the officers arrived, Walton banged on the motel room door and yelled

loudly. This early morning conduct is hardly consistent with the behavior of a person

having the right to occupy the motel room, let alone control or exclude others’ use of

Appellate Case: 05-4173 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/30/2006 Entry ID: 2063007
-5-

the room. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Walton’s motion to

suppress. 

Walton further argues that the search was unconstitutional because a motel

clerk cannot validly consent to the search of a guest’s room. Stoner v. California, 376

U.S. 483, 487-90 (1964). True enough, but because Walton had no reasonable

expectation of privacy in the motel room, the search did not violate his constitutional

rights. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 134 (1978) (holding that a “person who

is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of

damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person’s premises . . . has not had

any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed”); United States v. Goldenstein, 456

F.2d 1006, 1013 (8th Cir. 1972) (finding no constitutional violation in a warrantless

search of a hotel room as to a defendant having no occupancy rights).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4173 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/30/2006 Entry ID: 2063007