T'!|y :"' 0- A f.i

### 20I5HAR-2 An S= 5J

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. WILLIAM T. WRIGHT, Appellant. No. 71506-2-1 DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: March 2, 2015 Spearman, C.J. — William Wright appeals his conviction for one count of indecent liberties under RCW 9A.44.100(1)(b). He claims the trial court erred when itdenied his motion to suppress evidence obtained in a warrantless search of a hotel room he had occupied. We conclude that because Wright had no reasonable expectation ofprivacy inthe hotel room, the hotel manager's consent to the search was valid and the search was lawful. We affirm.1 FACTS 

### On the evening ofSeptember4, 2010, A.B. went out withfriends to a 

### party, dinner and then to Bert's Tavern in Bothell, Washington. A.B. had consumed five or six drinks overthe course ofthe evening and, by the time the

1Wright also filed two statements of additional grounds pursuant to RAP 10.10. In the first, he challenges the credibility of A.B.'s testimony and the reliability of the DNA evidence. The challenge fails because these issues are solelywithin the province of the jury and we will not disturb its resolution ofthese issues on appeal. State v. Johnson, 2 Wn. App. 743, 744, 472 P.2d 411 (1970). We decline to considerWright's second statementof additional grounds because it was filed beyond the time limitestablished in RAP 10.10(d).No. 71506-2-1/2 group arrived at the tavern, she looked and felt "a little buzzed." 2Verbatim 

### Report ofProceedings (VRP) at 77, 109.2 Sometime aftertheir arrival at the tavern, William Wright struck up a conversation with the group. Wright and A.B. talked and flirted for a while and, eventually, A.B. informed one of her friends that she was going outside to have another drink inWright's car, which was parked outside the tavern. AfterA.B. had been gone for about 20 minutes, two of her friends stepped outside to look for her, butWright and A.B. had already leftthe tavern together. The couple stopped to pick up more liquor and, around midnight, they drove to the Extended Stay America Hotel in Bothell, Washington. At 12:05 a.m., Wright paid for a one night stay and he and A.B. went to his room. A.B. testified at trial that she woke up in the room around 4:30 a.m., but 

### she did not recognize Wright and did not recall the evening before or how she got to the room. Although she was stillwearing a pair ofjeans, she saw that the crotch ofherjeans and her underwear had been cut or ripped open. She also 

### testified that Wrightrepeatedly hung up the phone when she tried to call her friends. When she began to yell, he grabbed some of his belongings and left the room. Shortly thereafter, A.B. called her sister and one ofherfriends, then went downstairs to wait for them inthe lobby. When A.B.'s sister and friend arrived, they insisted that she call the police.

2Theverbatim reportof proceedingsof theApril 18,2013 CrR 3.6hearing isreferred to herein as "1VRP". The sequentially paginated verbatim report ofproceedings of trial and sentencing dates from November 22,2013to January 31, 2014 isreferred to herein as "2VRP".No. 71506-2-1/3 Wright testified at trial that he engaged in consensual sexual contact with A.B. shortly after they arrived at the hotel. Specifically, he admitted that, after a bath, he got into bed naked with A.B., who was rubbing against him. He also admitted touching her over her clothes. He stated that he had just shaved and still had the razor in his hand when he got into bed. According to Wright, upon seeing the razor, A.B. asked him provocatively what he intended to do with it and asked him to cut open her pants. Wright testified that he did so, making a small slit inthe crotch of herjeans. After a short time, Wright claimed A.B. fell asleep and denied having any further physical contact with her. Officers from the Bothell Police Department arrived at the hotel to 

### investigate a possible sexual assault on the morning ofSeptember 5. They took
a statementfrom A.B. and transported her to the hospital for a sexual assault 

### examination. They also contacted hotel staffand confirmed thatWright's room
was unoccupied and secure. At 1:35 p.m., a detective contacted the on-duty 

### manager and obtained consentto search the room. The officers did not obtain a search warrant. They executed the search at 1:50 p.m. The search yielded multiple items ofevidence, including a men's razor and shaving cream, three 

### partially consumed bottles of beer, denim fibers found on the bed that matched A.B.'sjeans, and a dildo that subsequently tested positive for bothWright and
A.B.'s DNA. 

### Following these events, the Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office 

### charged Wrightwith one count of attempted indecentliberties, later amending theNo. 71506-2-1/4 

### charge to indecent liberties. The State alleged thatWright knowinglycaused A.B., who was "incapable ofconsent by reason of being mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, and physically helpless, to have sexual contact with [him]
or another, proscribed by RCW 9A.44.100(1)(b), a felony." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 78. Prior to trial, Wright filed a CrR 3.6 motion to suppress the evidence obtained inthe warrantless search ofthe hotel room. The State opposed the motion, arguing thatWright had no reasonable expectation ofprivacy inthe hotel
room at the time ofthe search because itoccurred approximately two hours after the hotel's regular check outtime of 12:00 p.m. and, consequently, the on-duty 

### hotel manager had authority to consent to the warrantless search. The trial court convened an evidentiary hearing on Wright's motion. 

### The manager of the hotel testified at the hearing regarding the hotel's standard policy for guest check in and check out. She testified that, due to an 

### anomaly of the hotel's computer registration system, employees could not assign
a guest a departure date in the computerthat was the same as the arrivaldate. 

### Nevertheless, guests were generally expected to check out by 12:00 p.m. on the afternoon following their arrival, even ifitfell on the same calendar date as their arrival. In Wright's case, because check inwas completed five minutes past 

### midnight on September 5, the hotel documents, including the registration card signed byWright, indicated an arrivaldate ofSeptember 5, 2010 and a departure date ofSeptember 6, 2010. But, according to hotel policy, because Wright hadNo. 71506-2-1/5 paid for only one night, he was stillexpected to vacate his room by noon on September 5. One ofthe investigating officers also testified at the hearing. He testified that the search ofWright's room was not executed until after a detective had contacted hotel staffto confirm Wright's hotel room was unoccupied and secure, verify that Wright's check out time had passed, and obtain a signed consentform from the on-site hotel manager. Wright did not testify at the hearing but argued that because the 

### registration card indicated a departure date ofSeptember 6, 2010, he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy inthe room until noon on that date. The trial court denied Wright's motion. 

### After a trial, Wrightwas convicted by a jury as charged. He appeals. DISCUSSION 

### Wrightchallenges the trialcourt's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained inthe warrantless search of his hotel room. He argues that the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States 

### Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. He concedes 

### that the hotel manager gave the officers consent to search the room, but contends the consent was invalid because at the time itwas given he still retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. 

### We review the validity of a warrantless search de novo. State v. Kypreos, 110 Wn. App. 612, 616, 39 P.3d 371 (2002). We review conclusions of law relating to the suppression ofevidence de novo 

### and findings of fact forsubstantial evidence. State v. Winterstein,No. 71506-2-1/6 167 Wn.2d 620, 628, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009). Substantial evidence exists where there is a sufficient quantity ofevidence inthe record to persuade a fair-minded, rational person ofthe truth ofthe finding. 

### State v. Hill. 123 Wn.2d 641, 647, 870 P.2d 313 (1994). Generally, we view trial courtfindings as verities, provided there is substantial evidence to support them. Hill, 123 Wn.2d at 647. 

### State v. Parris. 163 Wn. App. 110, 116, 259 P.3d 331 (2011). The burden is on the State to establish an exception to the general requirement that searches be predicated by a warrant issued upon probable cause. State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 803, 92 P.3d 228 (2004). The burden is on the defendant to establish the expectation ofprivacy in the place or premises that were searched. State v. Jones, 68 Wn. App. 843, 847, 845 P.2d 1358 (1993). Unchallenged findings of fact are verities on appeal. State v. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d 761, 767, 224 P.3d 751 (2009).In order to establish valid consent to a search, the State bears the burden ofestablishing that: (1) the consent was voluntary, (2) the person consenting had 

### authority to do so, and (3) the search did not exceed the scope of the consent. State v. Thompson, 151 Wn.2d 793, 803, 92 P.3d 228 (2004) (citing State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 678, 682, 965 P.2d 1079 (1998)). Only the second element is 

### in issue here. The trial court found thatWright checked into the hoteljust after 

### midnight on September 5 and "paid forone night." CP at 33-34. The court also found that Wright "was expected to vacate the room by the normal check-out time on September 5, 2010." CP at 33-34. Because Wrightdoes not challenge these findings, they are verities on appeal. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d at 767. Since these uncontested findings show thatWright's tenancy inthe room ended atNo. 71506-2-1/7


### noon on September 5, 2010, it follows that any reasonable expectation of privacy 

### Wright may have had in the hotel room also ended at that time. Because the officers obtained the hotel manager's consentto search the room afterthat, the
consent was valid. 

### Wright relies on State v. Davis, 86 Wn. App. 414, 937 P.2d 1110 (1997), 

### to argue that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room at the time ofthe search. He contends that because the registration form showed a 

### departure date ofSeptember 6, 2010, his tenancy in the room had not yet 

### expired when the search was executed on the afternoon ofSeptember 5. The argument is not well taken. 

### It is true that Washington courts recognize a hotelguest's reasonable 

### expectation ofprivacy in his or herroom, which is the same as the owneror 

### renter ofa private residence during theduration ofhis or hertenancy. Davis, 86 Wn. App. at419. But it iswell-settled that at theexpiration ofa hotel guest's tenancy the innkeeperacquires therighttocontrol thepremises and has 

### authority to consentto awarrantless searchby law enforcementat suchtime. Davis. 86Wn. App. at419 (citing Statev. Roff. 70Wn.2d 606, 611-12, 424P.2d 643 (1967); United States v. Huffhines, 967F.2d 314, 318(9th Cir. 1992)). Because thetrial court'sunchallenged findings in thiscase establish thatWright's 

### tenancy had expired before theon-site managergaveconsentforthepoliceto search the room, her consent was authorized.No. 71506-2-1/8 

### We conclude thatWright had no expectation of privacy inthe hotel room at the time of search and the warrantless search was conducted pursuant to a 

### valid consent. Accordingly, the trial court's denial ofWright's motion to suppress

was not error. Affirm.

WE CONCUR: 

## )/)-///l*W^ ( J

- 

# £crX,J.

8