CA6: Use of an alias renting a hotel room through an agent did not defeat a reasonable expectation of privacy

The use of an agent to rent a hotel room under an assumed name did not defeat a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. They had keys to the room and their stuff was in it. That was enough. United States v. Domenech, 623 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 2010):

Had the Domenech brothers rented Room 22 under their own name, they unquestionably would possess a legally cognizable expectation of privacy. See Allen, 106 F.3d at 699. That they used an agent to rent the room for them does not change this. The D.C. Circuit focused on the relationship of self-registration to one’s expectation of privacy in a hotel room in United States v. Lyons, where “a key to the room that had been rented on [the defendant’s] behalf was given to him by a third party (whose identity remains secret) ….” 706 F.2d 321, 324 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The court held that one can possess a reasonable privacy expectation—even though lacking a legally enforceable contract or property right to the room—because “each [guest] regards the space provided for him as his temporary place of abode.” Id. at 327; see also Washington, 573 F.3d at 283 n.1 (“A person may acquire a reasonable expectation of privacy in property in which he has neither ownership nor any other legal interest.”).

. . .

We do not read Carr as espousing the registration-required-for-privacy rule applied by the district court, but, instead, understand it to confirm that “[important considerations in the expectation of privacy equation include ownership, lawful possession or lawful control of the premises searched.” Carr, 939 F.2d at 1446; see also United States v. McRae, 156 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir. 1998) (relying on Carr’s list of considerations). Carr and Bruce easily reconcile with suppression of the evidence garnered from Room 22 at the Green Acres Motel. The Domenech brothers demonstrated lawful control/possession with evidence that they procured the room for their own use through their agent, paid for the room, possessed the key to the room, and occupied it both physically and with belongings.

Cases from other Circuits also hold that the use of an alias does not eliminate Fourth Amendment protections. ….

This case was reversed on rehearing on United States v. Domenech, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14452, 2011 FED App. 0467N (6th Cir. July 12, 2011) (unpublished), posted July 19, 2011, on exigent circumstances, whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy or not.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.