Private search was clearly private, and officer’s search did not exceed private search

In a really interesting case, the defendant checked out of a hotel room and left a gym bag in the closet and the safe locked. Housekeeping discovered the situation, removed the bag, and called hotel engineering to open the safe. When the safe was opened, the hotel manager decided to open the package inside to see if it would survive 90 days in lost and found (e.g., was it biogradable or subject to spoilage?). The package contained a powder which they suspected was drugs, so they called the police. The police came and saw that it was cocaine, so they got sham cocaine to replace it, and they put the sham cocaine back in the safe and the gym bag into the closet in case the owner came back to claim it. He did, and he was arrested when he came out of the room. His motion to suppress was denied because the police search did not exceed the private search, and they used the information from the private search and their confirmation to get a search warrant for the cocaine. United States v. Story, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29228 (D. S.C. April 9, 2008).*

No knock entry of a motel room for execution of an arrest warrant predated Hudson, and was still governed by it. Consent to search thereafter was still valid, even though the defendant was under arrest. United States v. Jones, 523 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008).*

First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim made by a crime scene investigator against officers who arrested him fails on the pleadings, but the possible false arrest claim survives their qualified immunity claim. Rhodes v. Prince, 273 Fed. Appx. 328 (5th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.