NJ: Hotel operator who finds stuff in a hotel room can’t grant consent; police should use info to get SW

When a hotelier finds something in a room that justifies calling the police, the third-party intervention doctrine doesn’t give the police the authority to enter. They should use the information to get a search warrant. “We therefore reject the State’s argument and decline to extend the private search doctrine to hotel and motel rooms. The third-party intervention doctrine cannot excuse law enforcement’s search of a motel room from the warrant requirement. To reiterate the guidance we provided in Wright, where a motel owner or employee finds contraband in a guest’s room, ‘the police can use that information to obtain a search warrant and then conduct a search.’” State v. Shaw, 2019 N.J. LEXIS 601 (May 13, 2019):

Although Wright discussed apartments, its reasoning applies with equal force to motel rooms. We therefore reject the State’s argument and decline to extend the private search doctrine to hotel and motel rooms. The third-party intervention doctrine cannot excuse law enforcement’s search of a motel room from the warrant requirement. To reiterate the guidance we provided in Wright, where a motel owner or employee finds contraband in a guest’s room, “the police can use that information to obtain a search warrant and then conduct a search.” Wright, 221 N.J. at 478-79. “In the time it takes to get the warrant, police officers can secure the [motel room] from the outside, for a reasonable period of time, if reasonably necessary to avoid any tampering with or destruction of evidence.” Id. at 478.

Here, the State’s reliance on the third-party intervention doctrine was misplaced, and the State failed to show the warrantless search of the motel room was exempt from the warrant requirement. As a result, we find the motel search was unconstitutional and that the illegal fruits of that search must be suppressed.

This entry was posted in Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.