State v. Patrick Knesek, 13-16-00657-CR

At 3:18 a.m., hotel security (Mendez) called 911 reporting suspected drug activity in room 127 after observing an open door and a bong; officers Razzo and Rodriguez arrived, forcefully knocked such that the door swung open, entered, looked around, found no occupants, and left after radioing a name from an insurance card (Brandon Tedder).
Officers left but instructed the security guard to call when occupants returned; about 30 minutes later the guard called back that two men had returned and double-parked outside.
At ~4:24 a.m., officers Cabello, Miller, and Rodriguez responded; Tedder opened the door narrowly, squeezed out, and as he attempted to close the door an officer blocked it, the door was pushed open, Officer Miller entered, observed a bong and baggies containing meth, and arrested Patrick Knesek and Tedder.
Officers later discussed the earlier entry, inspected the room for ~30 minutes, and obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit that omitted the prior warrantless entry and the fact contraband had been left in the room.
The trial court found the officers’ testimony not credible, concluded Miller’s entry was an unlawful warrantless search that led to seizure of meth, and granted Knesek’s motion to suppress; the State appealed and this Court affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Knesek's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge search of hotel room	Knesek was only a visitor; room belonged to Tedder, so no reasonable expectation of privacy	Knesek was an overnight guest with personal effects and intent to stay, so he shared expectation of privacy	Knesek had standing as an overnight guest; suppression standing affirmed
Lawfulness of officers’ entry and seizure	Officers’ actions justified by exceptions (plain view, knock-and-talk, protective sweep, community caretaking, etc.); disputed who opened door	Officers forced entry by blocking door and pushing it open; Miller’s entry was a warrantless search without exception	Trial court correctly found the entry/search unlawful; suppression required
Adequacy of warrant affidavit	Omitted material facts about prior entry and contraband left in room; State did not adequately justify omissions	Omitted facts rendered warrant tainted and insufficient	Court relied on suppression of evidence found during unlawful entry; State did not justify omission to cure the illegality
Credibility of officers	State urged conflicting testimony should be resolved in its favor or remanded for clarification	Trial court found officers not credible and credited Knesek and security guard	Appellate court deferred to trial court credibility findings and affirmed

Ex parte Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (visitor standing analysis in hotel/host context)
Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (burden to prove expectation of privacy)
Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1964) (registered hotel guests have Fourth Amendment protection)
Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent established exceptions)
Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (entry into hotel room constitutes a search)
Lopez v. State, 512 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2016) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (limits on standing to challenge searches)