466 P.3d 981
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant reserved hotel room 102 for July 20–22; on the morning of July 22 a hotel employee’s purse was reported missing after surveillance showed an unknown person leaving the laundry room with it.
- About 8:00 a.m. (well before noon check-out), hotel staff observed two people take bags from room 102, load a white Ford Focus, and leave; staff believed the occupants had checked out and entered room 102 to look for the purse.
- Hotel staff found new household items, printed labels with credit-card numbers, a receipt from another hotel, and other suspicious items and called police; managers told officers that the occupants had checked out.
- Officer Pastore entered the room without a warrant relying on staff representations, seized items (including a bill with defendant’s name), later located defendant at another hotel, found two keys to room 102 on him, and arrested him.
- Defendant moved to suppress under Article I, §9 (Oregon) and the Fourth Amendment; the trial court denied suppression, reasoning the officers reasonably believed the guest had checked out; defendant was convicted; the court of appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant abandoned his Article I, §9 privacy/possessory interest in the hotel room | Guest abandoned room because observed leaving with bags plus suspicious items left behind supported abandonment | No abandonment: no express checkout, personal items remained, defendant retained keys — thus retained a protected privacy interest | Reversed: state failed to prove actual abandonment; defendant retained possessory/privacy interest when police entered |
| Whether the trial court implicitly found defendant had checked out | Trial court implicitly found checkout so no protected interest | Trial court expressly declined to find checkout and relied only on officers’ belief based on staff statements | Court of appeals: no implicit finding of checkout; presumption of an implicit finding inapplicable |
| Whether hotel staff’s entry/search or their belief can supply consent or render the search private | Hotel staff believed guests checked out; their actions and statements justified police entry without warrant | Hotel staff had no authority to consent; private-search theory not argued on appeal | Court declined to resolve private-search/consent issues on appeal; disposition turns on abandonment under Article I, §9 |
| Other state theories (fraudulent booking/inevitable discovery) | Evidence lawfully discoverable because room was illicitly booked or discovery inevitable | Suppression required because warrantless search violated state constitutional protections | Court did not reach or rely on these theories on appeal; they were not meaningfully pursued by state on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cook, 332 Or 601 (test for abandonment is whether defendant’s statements and conduct demonstrated relinquishment of constitutionally protected interests)
- State v. Brown, 348 Or 293 (discusses formulation of abandonment and privacy interest under Article I, §9)
- Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (Fourth Amendment hotel-guest expectation of privacy case discussed by trial court)
- State v. Jones, 280 Or App 135 (abandonment can extinguish privacy interest)
- State v. Knox, 160 Or App 668 (abandonment is a voluntary relinquishment involving legal and factual questions)