State v. Williams, 881 N.W.2d 618

Background

In March 2013 Adrian Williams was arrested in a Holiday Inn Express hallway for an offense allegedly against a hotel employee; after his arrest the hotel manager decided to evict him and requested police assistance to remove his property.
Officers found a small plastic bag with white powder in the hallway and, after the manager let them into the room, began inventorying Williams’ belongings and discovered drug paraphernalia.
A canine officer performed a sniff of Williams’ vehicle; information from the hallway bag, the room inventory, and the canine walk-around were used to obtain a search warrant for the hotel room and vehicle.
A warrant search of the vehicle uncovered controlled substances; Williams was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance, and two counts of possession with intent to deliver.
Williams moved to suppress, arguing the warrantless entry/search of the hotel room violated the Fourth Amendment, the manager could not consent, the subsequent warrant was tainted, and the canine sniff lacked probable cause; the district court denied suppression and the jury convicted him on all counts.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Williams' Argument	Held
Whether officers’ warrantless entry/search of the hotel room violated the Fourth Amendment	Hotel evicted Williams; manager lawfully allowed officers in to remove property, so Williams had no expectation of privacy	Hotel guest retains privacy; manager could not authorize police search and the initial entry/search was unconstitutional	Entry/search was lawful because manager’s affirmative eviction terminated Williams’ expectation of privacy; suppression denied
Whether evidence from the initial entry tainted the later warrant	Evidence from hallway bag, inventory, and canine sniff provided sufficient basis for warrant	If initial search unlawful, evidence used for warrant was fruit of the poisonous tree and warrant invalid	Court did not reach whether warrant independent because initial search held lawful; warrant evidence admissible
Whether a canine walk‑around of the vehicle required probable cause	Canine exterior sniff/walk‑around did not require prior probable cause and produced admissible information used for a warrant	Canine sniff lacked probable cause and information from it cannot support a warrant	District court found no requirement of probable cause for the walk‑around and concluded warrant was supported (court affirmed)
Whether conviction should be reversed based on suppression arguments	Evidence lawfully obtained; convictions valid	Suppression errors required exclusion and reversal	Court affirmed denial of suppression and affirmed convictions

Key Cases Cited

State v. Morales, 869 N.W.2d 417 (N.D. 2015) (standard of review on suppression findings)
State v. Nguyen, 841 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 2013) (reasonable expectation of privacy and warrant requirement)
City of Fargo v. Rakowski, 877 N.W.2d 814 (N.D. 2016) (search occurs when privacy expectation violated)
State v. Mittleider, 809 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 2011) (privacy expectation analysis)
State v. Kuruc, 846 N.W.2d 314 (N.D. 2014) (hotel guest privacy in rooms)
United States v. Procknow, 784 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2015) (eviction ends guest’s reasonable expectation of privacy)
United States v. Molsbarger, 551 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2009) (same)
United States v. Young, 573 F.3d 711 (9th Cir. 2009) (same)
Young v. Harrison, 284 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2002) (eviction factors and clarity of hotel action)
United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 1997) (termination of rental period ends expectation of privacy)
United States v. Rambo, 789 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir. 1986) (guest cannot assert privacy in place from which expelled)
United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1987) (hotel lawfully taking possession terminates guest’s expectation of privacy)