{"id":5629,"date":"2011-12-07T09:43:30","date_gmt":"2011-06-07T07:52:27","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-06-07T07:52:27","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5629","title":{"rendered":"MA: Hotelier’s eviction of renter extinguished his REP"},"content":{"rendered":"

As in issue of first impression, Massachusetts holds that evicting a hotel occupant from his room for violating the basic rules of the hotel, even though he was prepaid for more days, extinguished his reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. Commonwealth v. Molina<\/a>, 459 Mass. 819, 948 N.E.2d 402 (2011):<\/p>\n

Although a guest may enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room, his privacy rights and reasonable expectations are limited by the unique and transient nature of his room occupancy. A hotel guest, for example, reasonably understands (or should) that hotel staff generally are able to enter his room to provide various guest services. See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 112, 126 S. Ct. 1515, 164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006) (\u201ca hotel guest customarily has no reason to expect the manager to allow anyone but his own employees into his room\u201d). Also, it is well settled that a defendant\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room ends when he abandons the room or once his rental period expires. See Commonwealth v. Netto, 438 Mass. 686, 698, 783 N.E.2d 439 (2003); Commonwealth v. Paszko, supra. Whether a guest\u2019s lawful eviction from a hotel room may cause his previous reasonable expectation of privacy to end is an issue on which we have not passed.<\/p>\n

When a guest\u2019s hotel rental period has been lawfully terminated, the guest no longer has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the hotel room. See United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir. 1987), and cases cited. Several courts, including several circuit courts of the United States Court of Appeals, have concluded in this context that a lawful termination includes a lawful eviction from a hotel room based in part or wholly on a guest\u2019s misconduct. See United States v. Molsbarger, 551 F.3d 809, 811 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2168, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1164 (2009) (hotel occupant\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy in room terminated when hotel manager with police assistance expelled occupant justifiably based on \u201craucous behavior\u201d); United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695, 699 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1281, 117 S. Ct. 2467, 138 L. Ed. 2d 223 (1997) (concluding hotel manager had properly evicted guest \u201cboth because he was not allowed to store illegal drugs on the premises [but had] and because his pre-paid rental period had elapsed\u201d; eviction extinguished guest\u2019s privacy rights in room); 10 United States v. Haddad, 558 F.2d 968, 975 (9th Cir. 1977) (guest \u201cejected\u201d for good cause, based on conduct including intoxication, disorderly conduct, and carrying gun in hotel; guest had no reasonable expectation of privacy in room); Johnson v. State, 285 Ga. 571, 572-574, 679 S.E.2d 340 (2009) (hotel guest had no reasonable expectation of privacy in room after hotel manager terminated his occupancy for selling drugs in room and creating disturbance in hotel); People v. Hardy, 77 A.D.3d 133, 139-140, 907 N.Y.S.2d 244 (N.Y. 2010) (hotel guest lost reasonable expectation of privacy in room after being ejected based on odors of marijuana and complaints of loud noise from room). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained that once a guest is ejected \u201cfor good cause, the room revert[s] to the control of the management, and the former occupant [has] no continuing right to privacy in the room.\u201d United States v. Haddad, supra. The court analogized the situation to one where a rental term expires: \u201ca justified ejection is no different than a termination of the rental period, when \u2018the guest has completely lost the right to use the room and any privacy associated with it.\u2019\u201d Id., quoting United States v. Croft, 429 F.2d 884, 887 (10th Cir. 1970).<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-5629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5629","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=5629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}