The officers searched the hotel room and vehicle, and found controlled substances in the vehicle. Williams was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with an intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a controlled substance. He claimed the officers' warrantless entry and search of his hotel room was illegal, no exceptions to the warrant requirement applied to the search, the search warrant obtained after the initial illegal entry and search did not correct the illegality, and misleading and inaccurate information was used to obtain the search warrant.
He also argued officers did not have probable cause to conduct a canine walk-around of his vehicle, and information from the walk-around was used to obtain the search warrant. The court found the hotel evicted Williams from the room, Williams no longer had an expectation of privacy after he was evicted, and therefore the officers' entry and search of the room was not illegal and did not violate Williams' constitutional rights.
The court found probable cause was not required before the officers could conduct a canine walk-around of the vehicle, there was sufficient information for a warrant, and the search of the vehicle did not violate Williams' constitutional rights. Williams appealed, and this Court previously remanded the case for preparation of a transcript of the suppression hearing.
State v. Williams, ND , N. Conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of affirmance. Findings of fact will not be reversed if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Questions of law are fully reviewable. We review questions of whether a constitutional right has been violated de novo.
The defendant has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that the evidence was illegally seized. He contends he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his hotel room and the hotel manager could not consent to a search of the room. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. If a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area, the government must obtain a warrant before conducting a search, unless the search falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Several factors may be considered in deciding whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, including "[w]hether the party has a possessory interest in the things seized or the place searched; whether the party can exclude others from that place; whether the party took precautions to maintain the privacy; and whether the party had a key to the premises.
See State v. However, a hotel guest no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy after he has been evicted from the hotel. See, e. Procknow, F. Molsbarger, F.
Young, F. Harrison, F. Allen, F.
Rambo, F. Haddad, F. A hotel guest "cannot assert an expectation of being free from police intrusion upon his solitude and privacy in a place from which he has been justifiably expelled. Rahme, F. The facts and circumstances must be considered to determine whether the defendant was evicted, including whether the hotel took any affirmative action that was a clear and unambiguous sign of eviction. See Young, at ; see also Procknow, at The court found Williams was arrested for a crime allegedly committed against a hotel employee, he had been removed from the premises, the hotel manager chose to evict Williams, and the hotel manager wanted Williams' property removed from the hotel.
The court found the hotel manager requested the officers assist in removing Williams' property, and explained:. This was not a search incident, it was a function that police chose to remove him from the--remove his property from the premises at the request of the hotel. The hotel asked the police to assist.
The police, certainly common sense is that the police would do a thorough inventory for the reasons they stated. I think that one of them used the example of a several thousand dollar valuable ring, they would hate to be accused of stealing, so it's clearly that he was--that there was no expectation of privacy in that room. The hotel wanted his property out of there, they asked for the assistance of law enforcement, law enforcement was invited into the room by the hotel to carry out that function.
Whether or not the hotel wanted it inventoried or not I think the testimony of the officers was they were just told to remove it. The inventory was done on their own, which as I indicated, certainly commonsense tells the Court that the officers needed, if they were going to take up that task, they needed to be protected from accusations of taking property. So I think that it's clear to the Court that the entry into the room is for assistance is legitimate. Evidence established Williams was arrested at the hotel for an offense allegedly committed against a hotel employee. The hotel manager testified that Williams gave her a look as he was removed from the hotel that made her very uncomfortable and that "it would not be a very nice situation" if he returned to the hotel.
She testified that she was concerned about and feared what would happen if Williams came back to the hotel. The hotel manager testified that she consulted the hotel's policy and verified that it was appropriate to remove Williams from the property to ensure the safety of the guests and employees, and she contacted law enforcement for assistance to ensure the hotel would not be accused of stealing any of Williams' property.
The police knocked on the door; the occupants opened the door and then immediately shut it when they saw the police were there. The Eighth Circuit held that this did not authorize the police to enter under the exigent circumstances theory.
Prior to knocking on the door, there was no evidence that the occupants were aware that the police were there or that any evidence was being destroyed. The occupants have the right to refuse to allow the police to enter and this is what the Kentucky v. King Court held , and the mere act of shutting the door was not sufficient to establish that there were exigent circumstances i. The police went to the apartment and asked the defendant about the presence of a gun, and the defendant told them it was in his room. The Second Circuit held that the un- Mirandized questioning was proper pursuant to Quarles , but the entry into the bedroom was not supported by exigent circumstances or any other exception to the warrant requirement which is especially important in the context of the search of a home.
The evidence should have been suppressed. The information known to the police was not sufficient to support a reasonable belief that the target of an arrest warrant was present in the residence that they entered. There were also no exigent circumstances to justify the entry into the residence, despite apparent damage to the door frame that the police observed when they arrived. There was nobody on the line, just static.
rikonn.biz/wp-content/2019-12-17/come-si-spegne-iphone-6-plus-senza-tasto.php An officer was dispatched to the house. When the police arrived, there was on sign of any emergency, or even an occupant in the house. The police looked into the house from a sliding glass door and saw various boxes of electronic equipment and the house appeared somewhat disheveled. The police then entered, announced their presence and asked if anybody was home nobody was in the house and conducted a sweep search, during which they found drugs and child pornography. When they exited the home, the defendant drove up and he was questioned and made incriminating statements.
The police then secured a search warrant.
Thus, the search warrant was the fruit of the poisonous tree. The police were provided information from a recently-arrested individual that the supplier of drugs was located at a certain residence. The police went to that residence, knocked on the door and were denied consent to enter. The police then secured the property and awaited the arrival of a search warrant.
The Seventh Circuit held that there were no exigent circumstances supporting this entry. However, pursuant to Segura v. United States , U. The police went to the location, looked over the fence and promptly detained with guns drawn the defendant, who fit the description and was walking around in the backyard. He was searched and a gun was found. They then determined that he lived at that house; and also learned that he was a convicted felon who could not possess a firearm.
The Ninth Circuit held 1 there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant — despite the report from the neighbor, the police should have asked the defendant his name and obtained information about where he lived before arresting him ; 2 there were no exigent circumstances to support the arrest and search; 3 the backyard was part of the cartilage of the house.
The landlord promptly called the police from the driveway. The defendant came out of the house, assaulted the landlord and then fled in his car before the police arrived. The police then arrived and entered the house without a warrant.