W.D.Mo.: Officers could rely on hotel manager’s apparent authority to consent to opening work locker

Defendant had a limited reasonable expectation of privacy in his hotel work locker and its contents, and officers got the manager to open it. It was reasonable for the officers to believe that the hotel manager had apparent authority over opening a workplace locker (especially since he could), and inside was a duffle bag with a gun barrel sticking out in plain view, which made it seizable. If the gun hadn’t been visible, this might have been a different case because the closed duffle bag would have exhibited greater privacy. This started with an anonymous report that defendant had an assault rifle in a duffle bag at work. United States v. Wadlow, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172697 (W.D.Mo. Dec. 14, 2016):

In this case, Wadlow’s supervisors did have authority to search his workplace locker. Under these facts, the Court concludes that the supervisors had actual authority to consent to search of Wadlow’s workplace locker. Compare United States v. Zhu, 23 F. Supp. 3d 234 (S.D. N.Y. 2014) (University-employer had actual authority to consent to officers’ warrantless search of laptop purchased by defendant-employee since an authorization signed by defendant granted University legal access to laptop).

Moreover, even if Mr. Aronson — in fact — did not possess actual authority to consent, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers acted reasonably in believing that management at the Holiday Inn was authorized to consent to a search of Wadlow’s locker based on Mr. Aronson’s representations about the employee handbook and his apparent confirming telephone conversation with the hotel’s general manager. Compare Honea v. State, 15 Ark. App. 382, 695 S.W.2d 391 (1985) (assistant manager of plant where defendant was employed had apparent authority to consent to search of truck cab where he sought advice from his immediate supervisor and dispatcher relayed message that he was empowered to sign release form).

However, merely consenting to a search of Wadlow’s locker did not necessarily encompass a search of a closed private container in the locker (i.e., the duffle bag). However, the Court finds that once the officers lawfully entered into the locker and saw the duffle bag, the rifle was in plain view. In making this finding, the Court has found the testimony of Mr. Aronson credible on this issue. Mr. Aronson testified on behalf of Wadlow and, with much of his testimony, clearly sought to assist Wadlow’s case. Nonetheless, Mr. Aronson was firm in his testimony — despite questioning from the Court and both attorneys — that the rifle was sticking out from the duffle bag. In light of this credited testimony, the Court concludes that the “plain view” doctrine and public safety exception to the warrant requirement authorized the seizure of Wadlow’s duffle bag.