MA: No expectation of privacy in homeless shelter quarters

Homeless shelter with 24 rooms was highly regulated as to who stayed where and for how long. The use of the rooms was not completely free, and the shelter regulated it and had the authority to enter for inspection. Thus, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the rooms. The shelter let the police in to look for a gun. Commonwealth v. Porter P., 73 Mass. App. Ct. 85, 895 N.E.2d 775 (2008):

Here, the defendant and his mother lived in a room in a twenty-four room shelter. The department paid their rent. They could not choose their room, and could be transferred to another room if deemed necessary by the shelter. They voluntarily agreed to live in a highly regulated environment, where shelter staff were charged with maintaining order, discipline, and a safe environment. [¶] The defendant had neither exclusive control nor sole access to room 24. Brown maintained a master key to the room and was permitted, along with her staff (acting under her direction), entry for certain purposes specified in the manual.

Reversed Commonwealth v. Porter P., 456 Mass. 254, 923 N.E.2d 36 (2010) posted March 12, 2010.

In a knock-and-talk, defendant’s assenting to entry and motioning for the officer to enter was manifestion of consent. State v. Johnson, 996 So. 2d 1151 (La. App. 5th Cir. October 28, 2008).*