CA6: Not extending hotel checkout is a waiver of REP in room

Where the defendant did not request a late check out and housekeeping entered the room and found drugs and called the police, defendant had waived his expectation of privacy. If he had requested a late checkout, he would have retained it. United States v. Lanier, 636 F.3d 228, 2011 FED App. 0093P (6th Cir. 2011):

The starting point is that a hotel guest has a periodic right to occupy a room, not a permanent one. “Once a hotel guest’s rental period has expired or been lawfully terminated, the guest does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the hotel room or in any article therein of which the hotel lawfully takes possession.” United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695, 699 (6th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation omitted). “[A] hotel guest’s right to a room is limited to a predetermined period of occupancy,” and it is reasonable to presume as a general matter “that hotel guests will check out at the designated time and their right in the premises does not automatically continue for some indefinite period.” United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 279, 285 (6th Cir. 2009). Other circuits see it the same way. …

Yet a hotel’s practices and communications with the guest may modify the general rule. “[T]he policies and practices of a hotel may result in the extension past checkout time of a defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” United States v. Dorais, 241 F.3d 1124, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2001); … As relevant here, these practices often take two forms: giving a guest permission to stay until a later check-out time or generally acquiescing in allowing a guest to stay until a later check-out time.

Larson, Gill and Dorais illustrate the first form. In each case, the defendants asked, and received permission, to stay beyond the check-out time. They therefore had reasonable expectations of privacy in their hotel rooms through the extensions, though not when, as turned out in each case, they stayed beyond the new check-out time. …

Watson, Owens and Kitchens illustrate the second form. In Owens and Watson, the hotels on previous nights had allowed the defendants to stay beyond the check-out time and to pay after check-out time for continued occupancy. … The defendants therefore reasonably believed that the hotels would allow them to do so again, permitting them to retain a privacy interest in their rooms. … In Kitchens, because the defendants had no “pattern or practice of staying past check-out time” that would give rise to an expectation of privacy after the expiration of their rental period, the Fourth Circuit held that they lacked a privacy interest in their rooms after the customary check-out time. …

The general rule, not the exceptions, applies to Lanier.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.