Opinion ID: 1560801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Suppression of the Evidence Discovered Inside the Motel Safe

Text: After locating Jackson in a South Carolina motel room, law enforcement obtained a warrant to search the fixed premises. The items sought in the search warrant included (1) any checkbooks, identification cards, bank statements, bank registers, or other documents or papers that related to the Sumners; (2) documents bearing certain names, and (3) any ATM receipt, sales receipt, or transaction record related to the Sumners' ATM card. Law enforcement also obtained the master code to the motel safe. Inside the safe, the officers found the identification, credit cards, and paperwork related to these victims. Jackson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress these items because an additional warrant was required to open the safe. The trial court determined that it would be reasonable to secure the items specified in the warrant in a safe and, therefore, the safe was properly encompassed within the scope of the warrant. A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness and the court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling. Rolling v. State, 695 So.2d 278, 291 (Fla.1997) (citing McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978)). In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a suppression motion, this Court conducts a two-step analysis in which we determine whether (1) competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of historical fact; and (2) the trial court reached the correct legal conclusion. See Thomas v. State, 894 So.2d 126, 136 (Fla. 2004) (citing Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598, 608 (Fla.2001)). Here, the issue was purely a question of law because the facts were undisputed. The privacy expectations associated with a motel room are similar to those afforded in the home, although the transient nature of the occupancy may diminish the extent of the privacy a person is entitled to reasonably expect. See State v. Rabb, 920 So.2d 1175, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing United States v. Jackson, 588 F.2d 1046, 1052 (5th Cir.1979)). During this occupancy, motel rooms are legally imbued `with the sanctity of private dwellings, ordinarily afforded the most stringent Fourth Amendment protection.' Green v. State, 824 So.2d 311, 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (quoting United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 561, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976)); see also Gilbert v. State, 789 So.2d 426, 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, a valid search warrant permits law enforcement to enter this protected space to search for specified items. Generally, the scope of a lawful search of fixed premises pursuant to a warrant extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-21, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). This includes the authority to search through any containers, even those that are locked, that would reasonably contain the items specified in the warrant. See id.; see also United States v. Snow, 919 F.2d 1458, 1461 (10th Cir.1990) (The locked safe was a likely source for the specified documents and could therefore be opened.); United States v. O'Neill, 27 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1135 (E.D.Wis.1998) (stating that a search warrant for firearms permitted search of locked safe as long as those items could possibly fit in the safe); Green v. State, 676 N.E.2d 755, 759 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (explaining that it was unnecessary to obtain a second warrant to search a safe located within a fixed premises). For instance, if a safe is unlocked, officers are unquestionably permitted to open it to determine if it contain[s] any of the items particularized in the search warrant without obtaining an additional warrant. Dotson v. Commonwealth, 47 Va.App. 237, 623 S.E.2d 414, 419 (2005). In evaluating conduct pursuant to a valid search warrant, the fact that a container is locked does not create any greater expectation of privacy in its contents than the limited privacy expectation that exists in the rest of the premises. See United States v. Morris, 647 F.2d 568, 573 (5th Cir.1981) (It would be a different matter if the box had been in a geographic area not covered by the warrant or if the objects sought in the warrant were of a size that would not fit in the box.); State v. Hansen, 732 P.2d 127, 131 (Utah 1987) (A legal search authorized by valid warrant cannot be thwarted by the experience of concealing the contraband in unusual places.). Thus, the trial court correctly determined that a locked safe in a motel room may be opened if the items specified in the search warrant could reasonably be concealed inside that location. Here, the search warrant specifically authorized the officers to search the motel room for several classes of items and extended to a search of any associated area where these items could reasonably be located. See, e.g., State v. Weber, 548 So.2d 846, 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). All of the items specified in the search warrant, which included documents, bank cards, and receipts, could fit inside the safe and would logically and reasonably be secured in a safe. Therefore, it was reasonable for the officers to search inside the safe for these items. Cf. Evans v. Commonwealth, 116 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Ky.Ct.App.2003) (holding that a search warrant that specifically authorized the search of an apartment for cocaine and other drug paraphernalia included a safe within the apartment). Stated differently, the officers were not searching for an elephant in a matchbox, but rather were searching for sugar in a sugar bowl. Dotson, 623 S.E.2d at 417. To require an additional search warrant to reach the contents of a safe located within the fixed premises of a motel room would frustrate every search warrant issued under these particular circumstances. Thus, the language of the search warrant clearly encompassed the motel room safe. Accordingly, the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress the contents of the motel room safe is based on the correct legal conclusion that this safe was encompassed in the search warrant and that law enforcement was not required to obtain a second warrant to access the contents of the motel room safe. Therefore, we deny relief on this issue.