Abdul Lateef Salahuddin v. Commonwealth of Virginia
67 Va. App. 190
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 15–16, 2015, Aaron Heid rented hotel Room 404 for a week on behalf of Abdul Salahuddin; Heid signed the hotel registration form that permitted random inspections and disclaimed landlord-tenant protections.
- Hotel manager Fowler observed heavy foot traffic to Room 404 on surveillance, entered the vacant room pursuant to the hotel’s inspection policy, and saw suspected marijuana in plain view.
- Fowler opened a kitchenette drawer during the inspection and discovered a large plastic brick of a white/off-white substance she believed was heroin; she summoned police and used her key to allow officers into the room.
- Officers and Sergeant Clarke viewed and photographed the drugs, left to obtain a search warrant, and later executed the warrant; Salahuddin attempted to flush contraband and was arrested; scales, drug paraphernalia, Suboxone packets, a small bag of cocaine, and $2,038 on Salahuddin were seized.
- Salahuddin moved to suppress all evidence as the fruit of unlawful entries; the trial court denied the motion, he was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine, and obstruction of justice, and was sentenced accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-warrant entry/search of hotel room violated Fourth Amendment | Salahuddin: manager lacked authority to allow police entry; manager acted as government agent; evidence should be suppressed | Commonwealth: registered guest’s agreement permitted hotel inspections; manager lawfully entered and could consent to police entry; any private search did not taint warrant | Court held entry reasonable: Heid’s rental terms permitted inspection and invocation of hotel’s right to exclude for illegal activity; Salahuddin’s objective privacy interest had reverted to hotel, so manager could consent and suppression denial was affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for obstruction of justice when suppression claimed | Salahuddin: obstruction conviction depends on evidence that should have been suppressed, so conviction is unsupported | Commonwealth: evidence lawfully obtained; obstruction proven by attempt to destroy evidence (flushing) | Court held claim fails because suppression denial stands; evidence sufficed to support obstruction conviction |
| Admissibility of testimony estimating heroin weight | Salahuddin: Clarke’s estimate (~10 g) was unreliable/should not have been admitted | Commonwealth: Clarke’s estimate was probative; Corporal Deschenes independently gave similar weight/value estimate based on photo | Court held any error in admitting Clarke’s estimate was harmless because Deschenes gave independent, cumulative testimony and other strong distribution indicators supported verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes reasonable expectation of privacy/Katz test)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (overnight guest may have expectation of privacy)
- Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (hotel clerk’s consent to police search not equivalent to guest consent)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (private search doctrine limits governmental searches based on private-party discovery)
- McCary v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 27 (hotel proprietor may terminate occupancy and consent to police entry when guest’s conduct undermines hotel interests)
- Sanders v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 734 (articulates two-part expectation-of-privacy test and totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- Beasley v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 381 (appellate review principles for suppression rulings)
- Allen v. United States, 106 F.3d 695 (manager lockout and reversion of privacy interest to motel staff)