Opinion ID: 2547910
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of Hotel Room Search

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress all evidence found via a warrantless search of his hotel room. When reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress, we consider the trial court's findings of fact conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. RCr 9.78. Using those facts [if supported], the reviewing court then conducts a de novo review of the trial court's application of the law to those facts to determine whether the decision is correct as a matter of law. Commonwealth v. Jones, 217 S.W.3d 190, 193 (Ky.2006). As we must with all suppression issues, we begin by noting that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). However, Fourth Amendment protection applies only to areas searched wherein the defendant possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980). The United States Supreme Court established that guests enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in hotel rooms. Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 490, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964) ([A] guest in a hotel room is entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.). However, once 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 article therein of which the hotel lawfully takes possession. United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695, 699 (6th Cir.1997) (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted). Appellant contends that his arrest prior to check-out prevented him from returning to his hotel room to either remove his belongings or pay to extend his stay. As a result, he argues that the police should be required to obtain a search warrant for his room. The Commonwealth responds that Appellant no longer had any privacy expectation in the hotel room after the checkout time expired. According to the Commonwealth, to hold otherwise would punish the police for properly discharging their duty and reward Appellant for his illegal conduct. The Commonwealth offers United States v. Croft, 429 F.2d 884, 887 (10th Cir.1970), in which the federal circuit court flatly rejected the appellant's argument that the expiration of the rental period should not control . . . because his arrest prior to check-out time prevented him from returning to the motel and perhaps extending the rental period. We agree. In Croft, the appellant rented a motel room on July 8, 1969 for two days and was then arrested on the morning of July 10. Id. at 886. Upon discovering a room key in the vehicle, the local county attorney and county sheriff were permitted by the owner to search the room shortly after the rental period expired at noon, wherein they found personal effects and a cardboard box containing a check protector. Id. at 886-887. Because the search was conducted after expiration of the agreed rental period, the federal circuit held that there was no invasion of the appellant's right of privacy, reasoning that it was defendant's own conduct that prevented his return to the motel. Id. at 887. Here, Deputy Sheriff Crabtree arrested Appellant upon discovering two marijuana joints and two methamphetamine smoking tubes in a Carhartt bag in the backseat of a vehicle driven by Tonya Brokaw sometime prior to 9:00 a.m. on March 23, 2009. Deputy Sheriff Vallelunga then found a hotel room key in the glove compartment. After lunch-time, hotel management allowed Vallelunga to search the room without a warrant, as the checkout time had elapsed, [1] as well as because the manager considered the items abandoned. [2] We follow the federal precedent established by Croft and thus hold that Appellant did not enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room because the search was conducted after the checkout time elapsed. While Appellant's concerns might merit closer examination had evidence shown that police detained him primarily to induce expiration of the rental period, we emphasize that such is not the case here. [3] We decline Appellant's invitation to require police to obtain a search warrant every time an arrest potentially inhibits a guest from returning and extending his or her rental period. While the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, it does not countenance a ridiculous game of cat-and-mouse between police and criminals. Because the expiration of the agreed rental period dissolved Appellant's reasonable privacy expectation, we affirm his conviction.