CA6: Jacobsen doctrine will not be applied to any residence, here a hotel room

The private search doctrine of Jacobsen that an opened parcel by a private person is subject to police search will not be extended to residences—here a hotel room. United States v. Spicer, 432 Fed. Appx. 522 (6th Cir. 2011):

The problem is this: we have already explained, unequivocally, that we are “unwilling to extend the holding in Jacobsen to cases involving private searches of residences.” United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695, 699 (6th Cir. 1997). Recognizing the difference between one’s privacy interest in a residence and one’s privacy expectation in an opened parcel, we decline to stretch the private-search doctrine to residential searches, including police searches of hotel rooms premised on private employees’ discoveries. Id. at 698-99; see also United States v. Williams, 354 F.3d 497, 510 (6th Cir. 2003). Spicer is thus right, but for the wrong reason—it is not that the district court failed to properly apply Jacobsen; it is that Jacobsen does not apply at all.

[The district court relied on a case of mine, United States v. Richards, 301 Fed. Appx. 480 (6th Cir. 2008), involving a rented storage unit. The Sixth Circuit brushed that analogy aside.]

Jail calls were subject to monitoring and recording, and the defendants knew it, so they will not be suppressed. United States v. Colbert, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85288 (W.D. Pa. August 3, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.