TX3: Def retained a REP in a hotel room he was evicted from because he wasn’t aware of consequences

Defendant still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his hotel room when he was evicted by police for violating policy, but there was no showing that he knew the consequences of violating policy. Smoking marijuana in a hotel room was not an exigency of destruction of evidence justifying a warrantless entry. Tilghman v. State, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 4699 (Tex. App. – Austin June 7, 2019) (2-1). [This one might not survive the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This opinion is well written and makes great sense, but it’s frankly not what a vast majority of courts think about hotel eviction searches.]

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress evidence of fliers for a prostitution service from defendant’s car because it was not prejudicial considering the telephone calls from him to the undercover officer. Blomdahl v. State, 2019 Iowa App. LEXIS 598 (June 5, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.