MA: Reasonable expectation of privacy found in a homeless shelter

A juvenile and his mother living in a homeless shelter (“transitional family shelter”) had a reasonable expectation in their living quarters. It wasn’t palatial, but it was their home. Commonwealth v. Porter P., 456 Mass. 254 (March 11, 2010), rev’g Commonwealth v. Porter P., 73 Mass. App. Ct. 85, 895 N.E.2d 775 (2008):

The room that the juvenile and his mother shared at the shelter was a transitional living space, but it was nonetheless their home. The juvenile slept and kept his belongings in the room. He and his mother possessed a key to the room, allowing them the degree of privacy inherent in a locked door. The fact that he did not own the room, that he was limited in his use of the room, and that shelter staff members had a master key and could enter the room “for professional business purposes” does not diminish the legitimacy of his privacy interest in the room. The same can be said of a patron of a hotel or a tenant in a boarding house, both of whom enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in their rooms. See Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964) (hotel patron); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (1948) (boarding house tenant). Indeed, in Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98-100 (1990), the United States Supreme Court made clear that a guest who stays but one night in a friend’s home — with or without a key, and with or without paying rent — “has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host’s home.” Id. at 98. “That the guest has a host who has ultimate control of the house is not inconsistent with the guest having a legitimate expectation of privacy” in the home. Id. at 99. In short, regardless of whether the juvenile resided in a palatial mansion or a single room in a transitional shelter, regardless of whether he owned the residence or was allowed to remain without paying rent, and regardless of whether his landlord or shelter director had a master key and could enter to ensure that he was abiding by the rules of the house, the juvenile had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home.

[Quantifying the quality of the home can be risky business under the Fourth Amendment. Cases have found a reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent. Other courts have found a reasonable expectation of privacy in cardboard box “homes” of the homeless. The opinion also discusses three state cases rejecting apparent authority to consent under state constitutional law which it declines to follow.]