People v. Torres, 205 Cal. App. 4th 989

Hotel burglary reported; items missing from guest room including laptop and Blackberry.
Engineer's unlock of room led to description of two women; hotel personnel and video review placed suspects in the hotel.
Police directed to room; officers smelled strong marijuana odor at door; occupants, including defendants, stepped into hallway.
Protective sweep conducted; Blackberry observed in plain view; credit card in victim’s name found in purse; Dean’s ID located; marijuana ashes seen in ashtray; laptop found under mattress.
Defendants moved to suppress under Penal Code section 1538.5; trial court partially denied suppression, allowing plain-view items but suppressing non-plain-view evidence; court found exigent circumstances to justify entry but suppressed some evidence.
Judgment reversed; remanded with directions to grant suppression motion as to all items from the room; potential vacation of pleas if appropriate motion filed; otherwise judgment reinstated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless hotel-room entry was justified by exigent circumstances	People contends exigent destruction of evidence.	Nadine Torres and Dean contend no exigent basis.	Exigent circumstances not shown; entry unlawful.

People v. Hua, 158 Cal.App.4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (exigent-entry limit based on offense severity and jailable status)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (exigent-entry limited to serious offenses; nonjailable offenses cannot justify warrantless entry)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (distinguish arrest context; urgency depends on offense severity)
Thompson v. State, 38 Cal.4th 811 (2006) (limits Welsh to nonjailable offenses; DUI as exception when jailable)
Vaillancourt v. Superior Court, 273 Cal.App.2d 791 (Cal. App. 1969) (smell alone used to justify entry when offense was jailable (distinguishable today))
People v. Ortiz, 32 Cal.App.4th 286 (Cal. App. 1995) (home as a Fourth Amendment domicile; exigent-entry constraints)