# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 20 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Dus ty A . Peo pl es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 10 , 20 17
Fil ed : Ap ril 24 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

. 1

__

__ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Dus ty A. Peo pl es pl ead ed gu il ty t o b e i ng a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm ,

co nd it io ne d on hi s rig ht to ap pe al th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to s u p pr es s ev id en ce

ob ta in ed fro m th e se arch of a m ot el ro om whe re he was st ay in g. Bec au se th e se arch

The Hon or ab le Lav en sk i R. S mi t h be cam e Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d St at es 1

Co ur t o f App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h C irc ui t o n M arch 11 , 20 17

.warra nt was ba se d on ev id en ce di sc ov ered by la w en fo r c e men t of fic ers whi le

as si st in g m ot el m an ag em en t i n l awfu ll y ev ic ti ng Peo pl es , we affi rm

.

On Mar ch 26

, 20 15

, Kan sa s Ci ty Po li ce Dep art m en t (“ KCPD”) Offi cer Bo bb i

Kin g was wor ki ng un de rco ve r at th e Cro wn Lod ge , a m ot el on th e ed ge of to wn th at

ha s su ffer ed fro m a ras h of cri m i n a l act iv it y in rece nt y ears

. On th at pa rti cu la r

m or ni ng , Offi cer Kin g sp ot te d a si lv er Toyota Cam ry in th e m ot el pa rk in g lo t th at ha d

be en rep or te d st ol en

. Acco r d i n g ly, sh e pr oc eed ed to co nd uc t su rv ei ll an ce on th e

ve hi cl e. Offi cer Kin g ev en tu al ly ob se rv ed two in di vi du al s, a m al e an d a fem al e,

co m e ou t of Ro om 11 4 an d ap pr oa ch th e C a mry. The wom an th rew a ba g in to th e

car, ha d a co nv ers at io n wit h th e m an acro ss th e ve hi cl e, an d th en dr ov e ou t of th e

pa rk in g lo t. Offi cer Kin g fo ll owe d th e Cam ry to In de pe nd en ce, Mi ss ou ri, whe re sh e

arre st ed th e fem al e su sp ect —l at er id en ti f i e d a s Mel is sa Tul ly—for po ss es si on of a

st ol en au to m ob il e. Afte r th e arre st

, po li ce fo un d am m un it io n an d an em

pt y gu n

ho ls te r in si de th e ve hi cl e, an d Tul ly in fo rm ed of fic ers th at a ge nt le m an by th e na m e

of “ Dus ty” had sp en t t he ni gh t wi th he r in Ro om 11 4.

Mea nwh il e, Offi cer Dery ck Gall owa y was di sp at ch ed to th e Cro wn Lod ge to

ad vi se m an ag em en t of th e cri m in al act iv it y on pr em is es an d to de te rm in e th e id en ti ty

of th e m al e fro m Ro om 11 4. Afte r arri vi ng at th e m ot el

, Offi cer Gall owa y in fo rm ed

th e cl erk on du ty th at a st ol en c a r h a d b e e n ob se rv ed le av in g th e Cro wn Lod ge

pa rk in g lo t an d th at

, whi le on e pe rs on ha d be en arre st ed

, th ere was st il l a y ou ng m an

as so ci at ed wit h th e ve hi cl e in si de Ro om 11 4. In res po ns e, th e cl erk ha nd ed Offi cer

Gall owa y a ke y to Ro om 11 4 so th at he co ul d ev ic t th e oc cu p a n ts

. Eit he r

im m ed ia te ly b efo re or aft er th is co nv ers at io n, Offi cer Gall owa y le arn ed th at po li ce

ha d reco ve red am

m un it io n an d an em

pt y ho ls te r fro m th e st ol en ve hi cl e an d th at th e

m al e su sp ect in Ro om

11 4 was na m ed Dus ty.

Offi cer Gall owa y th en wen t t o R o o m 11 4 acco m pa ni ed by ot he r of

fic ers , kn oc ke d on th e do or se ve ral ti m e s , an d an no un ced th at he was wit h th e po li ce.

-2

-Rec ei vi ng no res po ns e, he us ed th e ke y to en te r th e ro om an d fo un d Peo pl es lying on

th e be d. He al so no ti ced a lo ad ed ha nd gu n m ag azi ne on th e flo or ne xt to th e be d an d

wha t ap pe ared t o be na rco ti cs on th e ni gh t st an d. Peo pl es was th en ta ke n in to

cu st od y

. Bas ed on t h e e vi de nc e ob se rv ed in pl ai n vi ew du rin g th e ev ic ti on , po li ce

ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt fo r th e ro om , whe re th ey di sc ov ered an d se iz ed a Glo ck 42
pi st ol alo ng wit h a n a rray o f st ol en el ect ro ni cs

. Peo pl es was su bs eq ue nt ly ind ic te d

fo r be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ).

Peo pl es m ov ed to su pp res s al l ev id en ce ob ta in ed as a res ul t of th e in it ia l po li ce

en try in to th e m ot el ro om , whi ch he cl ai m ed was an un la wfu l warra nt le ss se arch th at

ta in te d th e su bs eq ue nt sea rch warran t as fru it of t he po is on ou s tre e. Se e W on g Su n

v. Uni te d St at es , 37 1 U.S. 47 1, 48 4 (1 96 3)

. Afte r co nd uc ti ng an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e mag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d de nyin g th e m ot io n, fin di ng no Fo ur th

Am en dm en t vi ol at io n be cau se a va li d ev ic ti on te rm in at es a ho te l gu es t’s reas on ab le

ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e ro om

. Here, “ th e m ot el m an ag e men t w a s jus ti fie d in

ev ic ti ng th e oc cu pa nt s of Ro om 11 4

. . . [b ecau se ] Mi ss ou ri la w al lo ws a ho te l to eject

a pe rs on whe n th e ho te l op erat or reas on ab ly be li ev es th at th e pe rs on is us in g t h e

pr em is es fo r an un la wfu l pu rp os e.” S e e M o

. R e v

. St at

. § 31 5.0 75 (3 ). The di st ric t

co ur t ad op te d th is an al y si s in fu ll

. Peo pl es th en en te red in to a pl ea ag reem en t wit h 2

th e Gov ern m en t, in whi ch he res erv ed th e rig ht to ap pe al th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to

sup pr es s, an d was se nt en ced to 46 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. He ti m el y ap pe al s, arg ui ng

th at th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t c o mp e l s us to rev ers e th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to

su pp res s.

“ In co ns id eri ng [t h e ] d e ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce, we rev ie w t he

di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on s of la w de no vo an d it s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear er r o r.”

The Hon or ab le Bri an C. W im es , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 2

Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri, ad op ti ng th e re p o rt an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le

Sara h W. Hay s, Ch ie f Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-3

-U

n i t e d S t at es v. Mol

sb ar ge r , 5 51 F.3 d 80 9, 81 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at i o n

m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. The pa rti es ag ree th at th e F o ur th Am en dm en t’s

“ pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es ex te nd s to a pe rs on ’s pr iv acy

in te m po rary dwe ll in g pl aces su ch as ho te l or m ot el ro om s.” Uni te d St at es v. Co nn er , 12 7 F.3 d 66 3, 66 6 ( 8 t h C i r

. 1 9 97 ). Howev er, “ on ce a gu es t ha s be en ju st if ia bl y

ex pe ll ed

, th e gu es t is wit ho ut st an di ng to co nt es t an of fic er’s en try in to hi s ho te l ro om

on Fo ur th Am en dm en t gr ou nd s

. ” Y ou ng v. Har ri so n , 28 4 F.3 d 86 3, 86 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 02 ). As we ex pl ai ne d in Uni te d St at es v. Ra m b o , th is is tru e be cau se , up on

ev ic ti on , “ th e ren ta l pe rio d

. . . te rm in at e[s ]

. . . [an d] co nt ro l o v e r t h e h o t el ro om

r e v e rt[ s] to m an ag em en t.” 78 9 F.2 d 12 89

, 12 95 -9 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). Ramb o an d

su bs eq ue nt cas es m ak e cl ear th at th e jus ti fic at io n fo r su ch ev ic ti on s m ay co m e fro m

st at e st at ut es au th or iz in g th e rem ov al of gu es ts un de r cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces. Se e, e.g

. , id

. at 12 94 (h ol di ng th at Mi nn es ot a’s un de si rab le gu es t st at ut e jus tifi ed of fi cers’ en try

in to a ho te l r o o m); Uni te d St at es v. Boh mon t

, 41 3 F. App ’x 94 6, 95 0- 51 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (p er cu ria m ) (rea ch in g sa m e co nc lu si on ba se d on Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 31 5.0 75 ). Thu s, it is si gn ifi can t th at

, un de r Mi ss ou ri la w, “ [a]n own er or op erat or

o f a h ot el m ay eject a pe rs on fro m th e ho te l an d no ti fy th e ap pr op ria te lo cal l a w

en fo rcem en t au th or it ie s [if ]

. . . [h e or sh e] reas on ab ly be li ev es th at th e in di vi du al is

us in g t he pre m is es for an un la wfu l p ur po se .” Mo . Rev . Sta t. § 31 5.0 75 (3 ).

Peo pl es effe ct iv el y ad va nc es two arg um en ts in fav or of su pp res si on

. Fi rs t, he

su gg es ts th at th e KCPD at te m pt ed to ci rcu m

ve nt th e F o u r t h Am en dm en t by act in g

th ro ug h a pr iv at e ci ti zen to co nd uc t a “ warra nt le ss se arch ” of Ro om 11 4. Ty in g th is

do ct rin e to th e lo dg in g co nt ex t, Peo pl es in vo ke s St on er v. Ca li fo rn ia

, in whi ch th e

Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at ho te l cl erk s can no t co ns en t to th e se arch of a gu es t’s ro om

. 3 7 6 U

. S. 48 3, 48 9- 90 (1 96 4)

. W hi le th is is un do ub te dl y tru e, th e reco rd do es n o t

su pp or t Peo pl es ’s effo rts to fram e th e KCPD’s in it ia l en try in t o Ro om 11 4 as a

se arch

. Rat he r, th e m ag is tra te jud ge de te rm in ed th at th e m ot el cl erk ha nd ed Offi cer

Gall owa y a ke y fo r th e p u r p o s e of effe ct in g an ev ic ti on , no t to co nd uc t a se arch

. Peo pl es do es no t co nt es t th i s f i n d i n g, an d in fact

, he co nc ed es th at “ th e m ot el

-4

-man a g e men t pr ov id ed Offi cer Gall owa y a ke y to Ro om 11 4 to ev ic t th e oc cu pa nt s

in si de th e ro om .” Thu s, th is is a ve ry di ffer en t si tu at io n fro m th e in va li da te d se arch 3

in St on er , wh ic h oc cu rred aft er a h ot el cle rk gra nt ed po li ce ac ces s t o a roo m ren te d

b y a r o b be ry su sp ect

, who was ab se nt at th e ti m e, fo r th e ex pr es s pu rp os e o f

co nd uc ti ng a se arch

. Se e id

. at 48 4- 86 . As su ch , Peo pl es ’s firs t ar gu m en t fa il s.

Seco nd

, Peo pl es co nt en ds th at

, ev en if St on er do es no t r e qu ire rev ers al

, th e

in it ia l po li ce en try in to R o o m 1 1 4 was un la wfu l be cau se hi s ev ic ti on was ne it he r

“ jus ti fie d” no r “ pr op er” un de r Mi ss ou ri la w. Se e Mol sb ar ge r , 5 5 1 F

. 3 d at 81 1
(“ Ju st if ia bl e ev ic ti on te rm in at es a ho te l oc cu pa nt ’s reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy

in th e ro om .” (em

ph as is ad de d) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) ); Y ou ng , 28 4 F.3 d at 86 9 (“ [W] he n

a ho te l gu es t is pr op er ly ev ic te d he lo se s th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t

warra nt le ss en try.” (em

ph as is ad de d) ). S p e ci fic al ly, Peo pl es arg ue s th at se ct io n

31 5.0 75 can no t be read to au th or iz e ev ic ti on s of gu es ts th at res ul t fro m po li ce rep or ts

of il li ci t co nd uc t to ho te l m an ag em en t. The ge ne si s of su ch ev ic ti on s, he su gg es ts

,

m us t co m e fro m

in nk eep ers in de pe nd en tl y

.

W e ack no wled ge th e po te nt ia l fo r ab us e whe n po li ce pr ov id e th e im pe tu s for

ev ic ti on s un de r se ct io n 31 5.0 75

. Fo r ex am pl e, it is po ss ib le th at an of f i c e r mi g h t

pr ov id e m ot el m an ag em en t wit h m is le a d i n g i n f or m at io n ab ou t a gu es t to cau se an

ev ic ti on as an en d- aro un d to th e warra nt pr oc es s. Howev er, jus t as we can no t bl in dl y

de fer to po li ce rep or ts of su sp ect ed cri m in al act iv it y , ne it he r can we in te rp ret se ct io n

31 5.0 75 t o r e q u i r e in nk eep ers to ig no re po li ce warn in gs of il li ci t co nd uc t on ho te l

pr em is es

. In st ead

, we m

us t lo ok to th e sp eci fic fact s be hi nd po li ce-i ni ti at ed evic tions

.

As we ha ve of

te n no te d, a pa rty’ s fai lu re to rai se a co nt en ti on in it s ap pe ll at e 3

br ie f is de em ed an ab an do nm en t of th at is su e. S e e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Ald ri dg e , 56 1 F.3 d 75 9, 7 6 5 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Fed . R . Ap p. P. 28 (a)( 6) ). Thi s pr in ci pl e

ap pl ie s ev en m or e fo rcef

ul ly whe n a pa rty m ak es a co nc es si on be fo re th is co ur t. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. DePu ew , 88 9 F .2d 79 1, 7 94 (8t h C ir. 1 98 9)

.

-5

-Peo pl es do es no t of fer, an d th e rec o r d d o e s n o t be tra y , an y ev id en ce of ba d

fai th on th e pa rt of th e KCPD. In fact

, Offi cer Gall owa y di d no t so m uc h as su gg es t

th at th e cl erk sh ou ld ev ic t Peo pl es

. R a t h e r , th e reco rd de m on st rat es th at , i n gi vi ng

th e ke y to Offi cer Gall owa y , th e cl erk wan te d th e oc cu pa nt s of Ro om 11 4 rem ov ed

. Fu rth er, th is de si re was jus ti fie d un de r Mi ss ou ri la w be cau se th e cl e r k ha d a

reas on ab le be li ef tha t th e oc cu pa nt s of Roo m 11 4 were us in g m ot el pr em is es fo r an

un la wfu l pu rp os e, gi ve n Offi cer Gall owa y ’s rep or t th at th ey ha d ke pt a st ol en ve hi cl e

in th e Cro wn Lod ge pa rk in g lo t an d th at Peo pl es ’s as so ci at e ha d be en arre st ed fo r he r

ro le in th is off

en se

.

In a si m il ar ve in

, Pe opl es cl ai m s th at “ em erg en cy or ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces ” are

req ui red fo r th e “ warra nt le ss se arch ” of m ot el ro om s un de r se ct io n 31 5. 0 7 5 a nd

si m il ar st at e st at ut es

. As an in it ia l m at te r, it be ars rep eat in g th at th e in it ia l en try in to

th e m ot el ro o m was no t a se arch bu t an ev ic ti on

. Mo reo ve r, jus t be cau se we ha ve

he ld th at “ [d ]isru pt iv e, un au th or iz ed co nd uc t in a hot el ro om inv ite s int erv en ti on fro m

m an ag em en t an d te rm in at io n of th e ren ta l ag reem en t,” Mol sb ar ge r , 55 1 F.3 d at 81 1,

it do es no t lo gi cal ly fo ll ow th at th ere are no t ot he r ci rcu m st an ces in whi ch th e co nt ro l

ov er a ro om rev ert s to ho te l m an ag em en t. In Mi ss ou ri, se c t i o n 31 5.0 75 ex pr es sl y

pr ov id es fo r ev ic ti on s ba se d on a reas on ab le be li ef of il li ci t act iv it y

. The st at ut e do es

no t req ui re em erg en cy or ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces fo r su ch an ev ic ti on , an d we de cl in e

to im po se th is co nd it io n where th e st at e le gi sl at ur e ch os e no t to do so

. As su ch

, we

fin d th at Offi cer Gall owa y ’s en try in to Ro om 11 4 was fo r th e la wf u l pu rp os e of

effe ct in g Peo pl es ’s e vi ct io n an d th at th e ev id en ce o bs erv ed du rin g t hi s i ni ti al en try

was a va li d ba si s fo r th e su bs eq ue nt se arch warra nt

, whi ch Peo pl es do es no t ot he rwis e

ch al le ng e.

Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g Peo pl es ’s m ot io n to

su pp res s, an d we a ffi rm

hi s co nv ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-