Opinion ID: 398632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure to exclude evidence seized at howard's arrest

Text: 23 Howard contends that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered the South Carolina motel room to arrest him. 13 The district court, he argues, therefore erred in failing to exclude certain evidence in plain sight in the motel room or on appellants' persons. As support for his contention Howard cites Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). In Payton the Supreme Court, considering the strong privacy interests of an individual in his home and historical traditions based on the common law, ruled that police, absent exigent circumstances, could not enter an individual's home to arrest that individual unless they had a search warrant. 14 24 The district court realized the relevance of Payton but ruled that the case was distinguishable because the arrest at issue occurred in a motel room rather than in someone's home. A mere recitation of the difference between the places in which an arrest occurred does not, of course, pronounce relevant Fourth Amendment distinctions. The Supreme Court in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 349-50, 88 S.Ct. 507, 510, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), rejected a formulation of the scope of Fourth Amendment safeguards that would depend merely upon the place in which an alleged violation of a defendant's constitutional rights occurred. The Supreme Court has, indeed, several times specifically stated that an individual does not forfeit his Fourth Amendment protections merely because he is residing in a hotel room. See Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 301, 87 S.Ct. 408, 413, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966); Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964); Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 143, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 1220, 8 L.Ed.2d 384 (1962). The appropriate approach, rather, is to determine Howard's legitimate expectation of privacy in the motel room. See Katz, supra; Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). If we find that expectation identical to that which he would have in his home, then we must hold Payton applicable here. 15 25 Not in all circumstances would we equate the reasonable expectation of privacy of an individual in a motel room with that of an individual in his own home. The former Fifth Circuit has in the past explicitly distinguished privacy expectations of a motel occupant from those of a motel owner because of the element of public or shared property in motel surroundings that is entirely lacking in the enjoyment of one's home. Marullo v. United States, 328 F.2d 361, 363 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 850, 85 S.Ct. 93, 13 L.Ed.2d 53 (1964). Cases in which the Court has upheld a distinction, however, have depended upon occurrences of searches or seizures in the public areas of a motel. Thus in Marullo the Court upheld the use of evidence discovered in the warrantless search of a crawl space under a motel cabin. Similarly, in United States v. Jackson, 588 F.2d 1046, 1050-55 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941, 99 S.Ct. 2882, 61 L.Ed.2d 310 (1979), the Court, (i)n view of the open, public, and shared atmosphere of a motel, the nearness of one's neighbors, and the prevalence of uninvited listeners in human society, id. at 1052, upheld the introduction into evidence of conversations that government agents overheard while in a room adjoining that of defendants. The seizure of Howard, however, differs from the searches involved in Marullo and Jackson because it did not occur in any public part of the motel or arise as a result of actions on his part that extended beyond the walls of his room. Rather, it occurred in a room that Howard had rented and in which at least some appellants apparently had stayed overnight. The motel room was, however temporarily, equivalent to a home. Absent some applicable exception to the warrant requirement of Payton, the warrantless invasion of the motel room by law enforcement officials violated Howard's Fourth Amendment rights. 26 Payton does articulate an exception to its holding if exigent circumstances exist. The government argues, and the lower court ruled, that, even if a warrant generally would be necessary for police to enter the motel room, the ongoing conspiracy provides the necessary exigent circumstances for the warrantless entry and arrest. The government's argument is unpersuasive. There is no evidence that appellants were engaged in any activities in furtherance of the conspiracy, aside from waiting for Rece and Fagan, at the time the law enforcement officials entered the motel room to arrest them. Howard did not give up his Fourth Amendment rights during the entire time period in which a conspiracy he had entered was ongoing. In any event, even if appellants had been engaged in actions in furtherance of a conspiracy at the time of their arrest, we do not believe that the necessary exigent circumstances would have existed that would obviate the need for a warrant. In United States v. Kreimes, 649 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir. 1981), the former Fifth Circuit catalogued the conditions under which exigent circumstances exist: Hot pursuit, a fleeing suspect, danger to an arresting officer or to the public, mobility of a vehicle, and mobility of evidence. The catalog indicates that the exigent circumstances doctrine is applicable only within the narrow range of circumstances that present a real danger to the police or the public or a real danger that evidence or a suspect might be lost. The circumstances of this case do not involve any of the situations adumbrated above. There was no danger that the suspects would flee, that police or public might be harmed, or that evidence would be destroyed. The DEA agents had adequate time and opportunity to obtain a warrant, and they should have done so. 16 27 We hold that Howard's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when DEA agents entered the motel room without a warrant to arrest him. The district court's decision not to exclude evidence seized as a result of that illegal arrest was error. If we conclude, however, on examination of the record, that the erroneously admitted evidence was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt, a reversal is not mandated. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 53, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1982, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); United States v. Marcantoni, 590 F.2d 1324, 1330-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 937, 99 S.Ct. 2063, 60 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); United States v. Hall, 587 F.2d 177, 182 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 961, 99 S.Ct. 2405, 60 L.Ed.2d 1065 (1979). We so conclude. The critical evidence in the conviction of Howard was the testimony of DEA agent Fagan and, in particular, of DEA informant Rece. That evidence clearly, repeatedly, and with overwhelming force connected Howard to the conspiracy. In light of that evidence, the probative weight of the items seized at the arrest and introduced at trial-pieces of paper with telephone numbers on them, a motel bill, and a business card-was minuscule. 17 28 We have reviewed the issues appellants raised. But for those of Jones, we find their contentions without merit and, on examination of the record, find the evidence sufficient for their convictions. 29 The conviction of appellant Jones is REVERSED. The convictions of all other appellants are AFFIRMED. 30