Opinion ID: 1749248
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence Obtained at the Penny Pincher Motel

Text: At approximately 6:00 a.m. on September 14, 1985, the Erlanger police were summoned to the motel in response to a complaint from a guest of a disturbance. The guest had reported that someone was beating on his door with a baseball bat. Upon the officers' arrival, appellant was found standing in an outside hallway between two motel rooms. One of the police officers knew appellant to be a drug user and perceived him to be under the influence of drugs at that time. During questioning, the police learned that appellant's room was number 165 and observed that the door was slightly ajar. While one officer talked with the appellant and asked for his identification, the other shined a flashlight through the partially open door into the darkened room. Just inside the door on a table top, the officer observed drug paraphernalia and a white powder substance. After this discovery, the officer noticed an opening in the window curtain. As he had done before and without entering the room, he shined his flashlight through the window and observed a handgun under the bed. Appellant was arrested, the police obtained a search warrant, and upon their search, cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and a handgun were found. Subsequently, appellant was convicted of various drug possession offenses and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. Prior to trial, appellant moved the court to suppress the evidence. His motion was denied. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the act of shining a flashlight beam into a darkened room amounted to a warrantless search in violation of appellant's constitutional rights. At the outset we must determine whether the act complained of constitutes a search within contemplation of the Fourth Amendment and Section 10 of the Constitution of Kentucky. From the facts presented the police were entirely within their rights to go upon the motel premises and to the location where appellant was encountered. A disturbance had been reported to them and their assistance had been requested by the management of the motel. Upon seeing appellant in the hallway at or near the location of the reported disturbance and upon discerning that he appeared to be under the influence of drugs, their attention was naturally drawn to him, and by virtue of his whereabouts, to his room. By design, rooms in modern motels are easily accessible and in close proximity to places of public passage. Many such rooms have picture windows with only a curtain to prevent public view. Without diminishing an individual's right to be protected from an unreasonable search of his motel room, Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964), we note that when one takes lodging in a motel it is with the certain knowledge that substantial numbers of persons unknown to him will be nearby and in a position to invade his privacy unless caution is exercised to prevent it. As such, what would be sufficient vigilance to preserve one's privacy in a home, apartment or office may be insufficient in a motel room. This view was recognized in People v. Berutko, 71 Cal.2d 84, 77 Cal.Rptr. 217, 453 P.2d 721 (1969), as follows: Essential to the determination of reasonableness in cases wherein officers obtain probable cause for arrest through their own observation is a consideration of the degree of privacy which a defendant may reasonably expect in a given enclosure accepted by him, whether or not that enclosure be his residence. (Emphasis added.) In those instances when the police have a legitimate reason for their presence on the motel premises, we are without reluctance in holding that one who asserts that his rights have been violated by an unreasonable search accomplished by looking through a motel room window or door must show that he took precautions sufficient to create an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. Otherwise, that which was seen was in plain view. Harris v. U.S., 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968). Having concluded that appellant's act of leaving his motel room door and window partially open to public view deprived him of a reasonable expectation of privacy, of what significance then is the police officer's use of a flashlight to look inside? In Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983), the Supreme Court broadly declared that . . . the use of artificial means to illuminate a darkened area simply does not constitute a search, and thus triggers no Fourth Amendment protection. Likewise, in U.S. v. Richardson, 388 F.2d 842 (CA6 1968), the court held that use of ultra-violet light to determine if the defendant had touched a bank bag dusted with fluorescein powder was not a search within the fourth amendment. This court reached a similar result in Rudolph v. Commonwealth, Ky., 474 S.W.2d 376 (1971), but our holding was premised on the officer's legitimate concern for his safety as a reason for his use of a flashlight. We are now of the opinion that a determination of whether or not contraband is in plain view should not depend on existing lighting conditions or the time of day. One seeking to maintain his privacy should reasonably expect that persons disposed to look inside a motel room will not hesitate to enhance their visibility by use of a widely available device such as a flashlight. In Texas v. Brown, supra , in commenting upon the fact that the officer bent down at an angle so [he] could see what was inside, the court said: The general public could peer into the interior of Brown's automobile from any number of angles; there is no reason Maples should be precluded from observing as an officer what would be entirely visible to him as a private citizen. In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), in its plurality opinion the court set forth three requirements for a valid plain view seizure. These requirements are: prior justification for the officer's presence, inadvertence of discovery, and immediate apparentness that evidence has been found. Observation of these limitations provides sufficient protection for the public as guaranteed by Section 10 of the Constitution of Kentucky and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. On this issue we reverse the Court of Appeals.