Opinion ID: 673830
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Holiday Inn

Text: 24 Harris's Holiday Inn room was searched pursuant to warrant, as was his person. Harris contends the warrants were not supported by probable cause, and thus evidence flowing from the searches should have been suppressed. 25 The police received a tip from an off-duty police officer that Harris and his companions registered at the Holiday Inn with Los Angeles addresses, paid for their rooms in cash, placed telephone calls to California, and refused room-cleaning services. Such characteristics fit an Omaha Police Division hotel/motel profile for drug traffickers. The police consequently placed surveillance outside Harris's room. 26 The surveillance officer observed one of the room occupants exit the room three times, look in all directions, and, after the third exit, climb on the roof to retrieve a white plastic bag. The occupants of the room then ordered a taxicab. The surveillance officer, after observing the room occupants depart in the taxicab, summoned two other police units and pulled the cab over. After one of the cab occupants attempted to run from the police as he was being frisked, the three cab occupants, including Harris, were then transported to the police station. 27 Harris argues that the affidavits supporting the search warrants were tainted by information gained from the period of detention. In short, he argues that the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the taxicab stop, and thus the unconstitutional seizure tainted the subsequent searches. The district court, however, found that [s]hortly after the individual retrieved the package from the roof and took it into the hotel room, all three individuals came out of the hotel room together and entered the taxi cab.... [A]t that time based on the activities already observed there was probable cause to arrest all three individuals. Add. at 71. We agree, and affirm the district court's denial of the motion to suppress.