United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4179

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Francis M. Summe, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 17, 2006

Filed: May 30, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After obtaining information that Eric Thompson had robbed pharmacies to

obtain Oxycontin, officers with the Kansas City police department’s career criminal

unit went to a hotel to arrest Thompson for violating his supervised release. The hotel

manager confirmed that Thompson was checked in for the past two days and showed

the officers paperwork with a copy of Thompson’s photograph on an identification

card. The manager stated Thompson was not there, but was expected back because

he had reserved the room for another night. Police were not told and did not know

anyone besides Thompson was checked into the room, although Francis M. Summe

had paid for the cost of staying the third night. The officers set up surveillance and

waited for Thompson’s return. Later, Thompson arrived at the hotel in his car with
-2-

Summe. Summe got out of the car and started walking toward the hotel, while

Thompson remained in the car. As one officer stopped Summe, another approached

Thompson. The officers had drawn their weapons because Thompson had a lengthy

criminal record, including a conviction for armed bank robbery. While some of the

officers handcuffed and arrested Thompson, others handcuffed Summe for their

protection until they determined his identity and whether he had any outstanding

warrants. Summe identified himself and admitted he had an earlier drug conviction.

The officers noticed Summe had been drinking, and called dispatch to confirm the

information. In the meantime, the other officers searched Thompson incident to his

arrest and found Oxycontin in his pants pockets. Some of the pills were in a bottle

with the label peeled off. The officers confirmed that Summe had an earlier felony

drug conviction, but there were no warrants for his arrest. 

When informed of Thompson’s arrest, the hotel manager stated she would not

allow Summe to remain in the room and asked the officers to escort Summe off the

property. The officers asked Thompson if Summe could take possession of his

belongings because the hotel wanted them removed from the room. Thompson

agreed, and stated the officers could go up to the room to remove his property. At the

hotel manager’s request, officers escorted Summe to the hotel room, and found two

bags. Summe claimed ownership of one, a black duffle bag. Before handing the bags

over to Summe, officers checked both bags to make sure they did not contain any

weapons. Inside the black duffle bag, the officer found two pill bottles with the labels

peeled off, containing 310 pills that appeared to be Oxycontin. The officers found

500 pills in the other bag. The officers then arrested Summe, and the Government

charged him with conspiracy to distribute Oxycontin and possession with intent to

distribute Oxycontin. 
*

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

-3-

Summe filed a motion to suppress the drugs found in his bag, asserting police

had no reason to detain him or search his luggage. The district court*

 denied Summe’s

motion, holding it was reasonable for the officers briefly to detain Summe to

determine his identity, whether he was wanted for any earlier criminal activity, and

whether he was armed. The court also held it was reasonable for the officers to check

the luggage for guns and contraband before turning them over to Summe. After the

denial of his motion, Summe conditionally pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 57

months in prison.

On appeal, Summe challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the

scope of his detention violated the Fourth Amendment. We review de novo whether

Summe’s detention amounted to an arrest. United States v. Ruiz, 412 F.3d 871, 879

(8th Cir. 2005). “During an investigative stop, officers should ‘employ the least

intrusive means of detention and investigation, in terms of scope and duration, that are

reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose’ of the temporary seizure.” United States

v. Maltais, 403 F.3d 550, 556 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. NavarreteBarron, 192 F.3d 786, 790 (8th Cir. 1999)). “The means used to effect the seizure

must be objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the

officers.” Id. Summe contests the manner of his detention–handcuffing him from the

initial encounter through the search of the luggage. Under the circumstances, we do

not believe Summe’s handcuffed detention was objectively unreasonable. A police

officer’s use of handcuffs can be a reasonable precaution during an investigatory stop.

See United States v. Miller, 974 F.2d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1992). The officers had a

legitimate concern that Thompson might be armed, see id., and did not know Summe’s

identity, whether he was a fugitive, or whether he was involved in illicit activity with

Thompson. The district court found that only ten to fifteen minutes elapsed between

Summe’s initial detention and his arrest. We cannot say the mere fact that Summe
-4-

remained handcuffed for five minutes after officers learned he was not a wanted

fugitive converted the investigatory stop into an arrest. The officers did not know

whether someone else was in the hotel room or whether there might be weapons there,

and kept Summe cuffed for their safety until they could dispel their concerns. See

United States v. Claxton, 276 F.3d 420, 423 (8th Cir. 2002) (reasonable for officers to

suspect anyone involved in drug trafficking may be armed with a gun). 

Summe also argues the search of the hotel room was unreasonable. We

disagree. By the time of the search, the hotel manager had asked Summe to vacate

the premises. The officers could reasonably believe the manager could eject Summe

because the room had been used for an unlawful purpose. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §

315.075(3). Having been ejected from the room, Summe lacks standing to contest the

officers' entry (search) into the room. United States v. Rambo, 789 F.2d 1289, 1295-

96 (8th Cir. 1986); United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 1997). Further,

the officers had Thompson’s consent to enter the hotel room for collection of his

belongings. 

Summe last argues that even if the officers had authority to enter and search the

hotel room, their search inside his black duffle bag violated the Fourth Amendment.

See Rambo, 789 F.3d at 1296 (although evicted motel guest lacked standing to

challenge search of motel room, standing to challenge search of locked luggage inside

room “raise[d] a more difficult question”). “[W]hen a hotel guest’s rental period has

expired or been lawfully terminated, the guest does not have a legitimate expectation

of privacy in the hotel room or in any articles therein of which the hotel lawfully takes

possession.” United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir. 1987) (after hotel took

possession of luggage left in room beyond rental period, law enforcement conducted

inventory search); see United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695, 699 (6th Cir. 1997) (drugs

in plain view inside room). If the hotel properly takes possession of a guest’s luggage

under state lien law, then the guest has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the

luggage. Rahme, 813 F.3d at 34-35. 
-5-

Although Thompson and Summe were not evicted for nonpayment rendering

their bags seizable by the hotel under Missouri law, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 419.060.1,

we believe any legitimate expectation of privacy Summe had in the bag was

outweighed by the officer’s concern for their safety. Cf. United States v. Owens, 782

F.2d 146, 151 (10th Cir. 1986) (even if officers properly entered hotel room to perform

a cursory investigation for dangerous cohorts, searching closed bag found inside

closed drawer exceeded scope of protective sweep). The officers had just placed

Thompson, a federal fugitive guilty of armed bank robbery, under lawful custodial

arrest, and found a large quantity of suspected illegal pills in his possession. The

officers could reasonably believe that Thompson was armed and dangerous, see New

York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 117 (1986), and that the black duffle bag found in

Thompson’s room might belong to him and contain a weapon, despite Summe’s

claimed ownership of the bag. Given the substantial public concern for the safety of

police officers lawfully carrying out enforcement efforts, we cannot say the officers

acted unreasonably in making sure the bags did not contain weapons before turning

them over to Summe, a previously convicted felon.

We thus affirm the district court. 

______________________________