{"id":1966,"date":"2008-05-23T17:51:05","date_gmt":"2008-04-08T08:44:56","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-04-08T08:44:56","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1966","title":{"rendered":"A mere visitor to a hotel room has no standing, but facts here indicated defendant might have standing"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mere visitor to a hotel room, as opposed to a guest of a guest, has no standing to challenge a search. Here, whether defendant was going to be a guest where another rented two rooms was disputed, so the court assumes that he has standing and rules against him on consent. United States v. Williams<\/a>, 521 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2008):<\/p>\n

The fact that Williams did not register or pay for the hotel room does not necessarily preclude him from having a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. See United States v. Jeffers<\/em><\/a>, 342 U.S. 48, 50-52 (1951) (individual who was allowed to use hotel room, had a key, and often entered room for various purposes could object to search of room on Fourth Amendment grounds even though someone else paid and registered for the room). Unlike Sturgis, where the defendant admitted he was merely a visitor, and Carter, where the defendant had never even been to the hotel room, here the few facts in the record indicate Williams was a legitimate guest at the motel. The manager testified that Davis rented two rooms, and that he understood that “there was going to be other guests there” because Davis told him “my friend is going to come in.” Also, Williams was the only person in Room 222, which makes it less likely he was a “mere visitor” to the room. However, the record does not indicate the length of time Williams was in the room, whether he had a key or personal belongings in the room, or whether there were others who were intended to occupy the room. As the expectation of privacy issue is unnecessary to the ultimate holding, this court will assume that Williams had an expectation of privacy in Room 222.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Parole officer was not a “stalking horse” for the police because he was pursuing his own legitimate investigation. United States v. Speed<\/a>, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7381 (2d Cir. April 7, 2008) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}