IL: No REP in bloody clothes in trauma room at hospital

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a trauma room he was in about 15 minutes before the police arrived. His bloody clothes were in plain view. People v. Turner, 2022 IL App (5th) 190329, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 460 (Oct. 31, 2022):

[*P57] In considering the above caselaw and legal principles, we do not find defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the trauma room. It is undisputed that the second factor is established. Defendant was legitimately present in the trauma room to seek medical treatment for his gunshot wound. However, none of the other factors support finding a reasonable expectation of privacy. Defendant had neither ownership over (first factor) nor a possessory interest (third factor) in the area. He was in the room about 15 minutes before officers arrived, and there was no evidence that defendant had prior use of the trauma room (fourth factor).

[*P58] With respect to the fifth factor—ability to control others’ access to the area—there is also no evidence to conclude defendant could exclude persons from the area. Defendant’s mother testified that she was excluded from the room until hospital staff allowed her to go back. We find this demonstrates the hospital’s control over the area, not defendant’s. We also find significant that while defendant may invite guests to the room, the hospital would have the controlling authority on whether defendant’s invitees were allowed in the room. Without evidence of defendant’s authority to include or exclude others from the trauma room, we find this factor does not support a finding of an ability to control others’ access to the area required to evidence a legitimate expectation of privacy. See Rosenberg, 213 Ill. 2d at 78 (“It is the defendant’s burden to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy that was violated by the challenged search.”).

[*P59] We further find no evidence of the sixth factor, defendant’s subjective expectation of privacy. There is no indication that defendant wanted the trauma room door closed or that defendant requested to have no visitors. By all accounts, defendant voluntarily spoke to and cooperated with the officers. The record does not reveal defendant took any steps to proclaim his privacy beyond his presence in the trauma room.