923 N.W.2d 52
Minn. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Aug. 14, 2015 police requested the guest list from a Bloomington hotel; clerk reported Leonard had just checked in using a Pennsylvania ID, paid cash, and rented the room for six hours.
- Officers ran Leonard’s criminal-history information, went to his room, announced themselves, and heard a toilet flush and papers shuffling before Leonard opened the door and allowed entry.
- In the room officers observed large cash, two printers, envelopes; Leonard briefly picked up a laptop, phone, and folder containing checks and refused officers’ request to inspect them.
- Officers secured the scene, obtained a search warrant, and seized multiple purported paychecks (many sharing an account number), $5,338 cash, and check-printing paper; Leonard was charged with check forgery and offering a forged check.
- Leonard moved to suppress, arguing the warrantless search of hotel-registration records (under Minn. Stat. §§ 327.10, .12, .13) was unconstitutional under Patel and that the records led to the evidence; the district court denied suppression and convicted Leonard following a stipulated-evidence submission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Leonard) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guest has reasonable expectation of privacy in identifying information given to hotel | Statute forcing hotels to keep and make records available amounts to an unlawful warrantless search (Patel); information obtained from records led to evidence | The guest lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily provided to a hotel; Patel concerns hotel-operator rights, not guest rights | Court held Leonard had no reasonable expectation of privacy in hotel registration data; suppression properly denied |
| Whether Patel invalidates statute as applied to guest | Patel requires precompliance review for hotel operators; statute thus unconstitutional and evidence fruit of unlawful search | Patel addressed hotel-operator rights and was narrow; it did not decide guests’ Fourth Amendment rights in registration records | Court rejected application of Patel to bar use of registration info against guest |
| Whether Minnesota Constitution affords greater protection than Fourth Amendment | State provision should be read more expansively to protect guest records | No principled basis shown to depart from federal third-party disclosure doctrine; existing MN caselaw aligns with federal precedents | Court declined to extend greater state-constitutional protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in numbers dialed and information voluntarily conveyed to third parties)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (no Fourth Amendment protection for bank records voluntarily conveyed to bank)
- City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015) (municipal ordinance requiring hotel operators to submit registries invalid without precompliance review)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (draws line between information shared with third parties and protected digital-tracking data)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left for collection)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted vicariously)