Document: 376 U.S. 483 84 S.Ct. 889 11 L.Ed.2d 856 Joseph Lyle STONER, Petitioner,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 209. Argued Feb. 25, 1964. Decided March 23, Rehearing Denied May 18, See 377 940, 1330. William H. Dempsey, Jr., for petitioner. Arlo E. Smith, San Francisco, Cal., respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner was convicted armed robbery after a jury trial in Superior Court Los Angeles County, California. At several articles which had been found by police officers search petitioner's hotel room during his absence were admitted into evidence over objection. A District Appeal California affirmed conviction,1 and Supreme denied further review.2 We granted certiorari, limiting review 'to question whether obtained an unlawful seizure.' 374 826, 83 1880, 10 1050. For reasons follow, we conclude that conviction must be set aside. 2 essential facts are not dispute. On night October 1960, Budget Town Food Market Monrovia, California, robbed two men, one whom described eyewitnesses as carrying gun wearing hornrimmed glasses grey jacket. Soon checkbook belonging to adjacent parking lot turned police. Two stubs indicated checks drawn order Mayfair Hotel Pomona, Pursuing this lead, learned from Police Department Pomona previous criminal record, they photograph They showed robbery, who both stated picture looked like man carried gun. basis information went at about o'clock on 27. neither nor arrest warrants. There then transpired following events, later recounted officers: 3 'We approached desk, clerk, asked him if there party name Joey L. Stoner living hotel. He checked records 'Yes, is.' And what he in. Room 404 but out time. 4 how knew out. regulations required key would placed mail box each time left box, therefore room. 5 give us permission enter room, explaining our this. 6 'Q. What did you explain clerk? 7 'A. explained make possibly committed City concerned fact weapon. 'In case, I will more than happy take directly room.' 8 Is clerk told you? 9 Yes, sir. else happened? detective lobby, Detective Oliver, Officer Collins, myself, along with got elevator proceeded fourth floor, 404. lock, unlocked door, says, 'Be my guest." 12 entered made thorough its contents. pair jacket .45-caliber automatic pistol clip cartridges bottom bureau drawer. arrested days Las Vegas, Nevada. waived extradition returned charge robbery. gun, clip, horn-rimmed glasses, all used against trial. 13 conducted without warrant any kind, it 'can survive constitutional inhibition only upon showing surrounding brought within exceptions rule rest warrant. Jones v. United States, 357 493, 499, (78 1253, 1257, 1514); States Jeffers, 342 48, 51, (72 93, 95, 96 L.Ed. 59).' Rios 364 253, 261, 80 1431, 1436, 1688. thought justified incident lawful arrest.3 But can is substantially contemporaneous confined immediate vicinity arrest. Agnello 269 20, 46 4, 70 145.4 Whatever leeway may these concepts,5 clear 27 Nevada, 29. completely unrelated arrest, place. Preston decided day, 375 364, 881. 14 In respondent has recognized reasoning cannot reconciled decision Agnello, nor, indeed, most recent decisions.6 Accordingly, no argument Instead, although consent, because consent clerk. find unpersuasive. 15 Even assumed state law gave proprietor blanket authority authorize rooms hotel's guests could challenge, intimation cases cited such law.7 Nor substance claim reasonable police, relying clerk's expressions belief search. Our decisions rights protected Fourth Amendment eroded strained applications agency or unrealistic doctrines 'apparent authority.' As said, 16 'it unnecessary ill-advised import right free unreasonable searches seizures subtle distinctions, developed refined common evolving body private property which, almost ther branch law, shaped distinctions whose validity largely historical. * (W)e ought bow them fair administration law. To do so comport justly proud procedural protections accorded those charged crime.' 362 257, 266—267, 725, 733—734, 697. 17 It important bear mind stake here, hotel's. right, therefore, waive word deed, either through agent. true clearly unambiguously consented nothing record indicate whatsoever believe authorized permit 18 least twice explicitly refused otherwise proprietor. Lustig 338 74, 69 1372, 93 1819; 72 59. manager allowed occupant's absence, held unconstitutional. Jeffers assistant similar search, likewise 19 true, said when person engages undoubtedly gives 'implied express permission' 'such persons maids, janitors repairmen' 'in performance their duties.' U.S., conduct present case entirely different order. closely analogous situation house occupied tenant invaded tenant's even though owner house, presumably apparent actual some purposes, 'view waste.' Chapman 365 610, 81 776, 828. pointed officers' purpose entering view waste distilling equipment, concluded uphold leave tenants' homes secure discretion landlords. 20 No less occupant boarding McDonald 335 451, 191, 153, guest entitled protection seizures. Johnson 333 10, 68 367, 92 436. That disappear depend unfettered employee follows unlawful. Since trial, judgment reversed. Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 1684, 1081.8 21 ordered. 22 Judgment 23 HARLAN, concurring part dissenting part. 24 agree wit Court's opinion, except disposition case. remand consider admission illegally seized harmless error. Fahy Connecticut, 85, 229, 171, does require justify course takes. Fahy, Connecticut opportunity decide error respect involved; here opportunity.* original matter is, incompatible proper federal-state relations. 25 vacate below courts appropriate proceedings. 205 Cal.App.2d 108, Cal.Rptr. 718. 116, court reasoned probable cause prior entry room; obliged accept statement reasonably inferred making arrest,' observation plain sight led search; circumstances seizure 'part same transaction.' 113, 718, 722. 'The contemporaneously lawfully while committing crime place where seize things connected fruits means committed, well weapons other effect escape custody doubted. Carroll 267 132, 158 (45 280, 287, 543), Weeks 232 383, 392 (34 341, 344, 58 652) *. extend places.' Id., 30, 5, 145. also Ker 42, n. 13, 1623, 726; 79—80, 1374—1375, 1819. Although members have expressed defining permissible bounds too far, see, e.g., Harris 331 145, 155, 183, 195, 67 1098, 1103 1104, 1113, 1119, 91 1399 (dissenting opinions); Rabinowitz, 339 56, 68, 430, 436, 94 653 opinion), holding searched—a removed geographically arrest—has never questioned '(T)he 'for distance thereof therewith.' (Castaneda Court, (59 Cal.2d 439), 59 A.C. 456, 459, 30 1, 3; 380 P.2d 641, 643; Tompkins 65), 75, 77, 889, 378 113; People Gorg, 45 781, 291 469.)' King, 60 308, 311, 32 825, 384 155. Roberts Casey, 36 Supp. 767, 654; Fox Windemere Apt. Co., Cal.App. 162, 157 P. 820; Vaughan, 65 844, 150 964. mere her guests.' Burke, 208 149, 160, 912, 919. argued should remanded let depended large jury's resolution credibility witnesses, determination certainly influenced incriminating nature physical erroneously admitted. thus 'a possibility complained might contributed conviction.' 86, 230, 171. accused included confession charged. This claim, contained petition involuntarily made. 1050, ante, p. 890.

Category: 0