{"id":5884,"date":"2011-12-17T13:09:20","date_gmt":"2011-08-10T04:02:10","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-08-10T04:02:10","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5884","title":{"rendered":"CA6: <em>Jacobsen<\/em> doctrine will not be applied to any residence, here a hotel room"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The private search doctrine of <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=16573686290496533405&amp;q=466+us+109&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=802\">Jacobsen<\/a> that an opened parcel by a private person is subject to police search will not be extended to residences\u2014here a hotel room. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/11a0533n-06.pdf\">United States v. Spicer<\/a>, 432 Fed. Appx. 522 (6th Cir. 2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The problem is this: we have already explained, unequivocally, that we are \u201cunwilling to extend the holding in <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=16573686290496533405&amp;q=466+us+109&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=802\">Jacobsen<\/a> to cases involving private searches of residences.\u201d United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695, 699 (6th Cir. 1997). Recognizing the difference between one&#8217;s privacy interest in a residence and one\u2019s 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\u2019 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\u2014it is not that the district court failed to properly apply <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=16573686290496533405&amp;q=466+us+109&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=802\">Jacobsen<\/a>; it is that Jacobsen does not apply at all.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>[The district court relied on a case of mine, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/08a0708n-06.pdf\">United States v. Richards<\/a>, 301 Fed. Appx. 480 (6th Cir. 2008), involving a rented storage unit. The Sixth Circuit brushed that analogy aside.]<\/p>\n<p>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).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5884\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-5884","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5884","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=5884"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5884\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5884"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5884"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5884"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}