United States v. Creighton, 639 F.3d 1281

Creighton and associates engaged in a mail theft and check-forgery scheme in the Denver metro area over 18 months, leading to 22-count indictment; he was convicted on Counts 1–5 (inventory/forgery-related) and Counts 18–20 (involving later arrests) after a bench trial; the challenged evidence arose from three arrests: March 8, 2005 (Motel 6, Greenwood Village), June 19, 2005 (Homewood Suites, Glendale), and July 11, 2006 (Granby Way residence, Aurora); GVPD conducted an inventory search of luggage post-arrest, and GPD/APD conducted warrantless room seizure and a warrantless seizure from the Granby Way residence with an ensuing confession and searches; district court denied suppression as to the challenged items; court summarily affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the GVPD inventory search of luggage was sufficiently regulated	Creighton argues lack of regulation makes search unlawful	Creighton relies on Wells to claim unregulated policy	Search is sufficiently regulated; upheld
Whether Creighton had standing to challenge the GPD entry into the hotel room	Creighton asserts privacy interest in the room	Owner's concepts and occupancy show no continuing privacy after eviction	Defendant lacked standing; privacy ended when rental/possession diminished, so no Fourth Amendment violation
Whether the Granby Way warrantless seizure was justified by exigent circumstances	APD acted on plausible threat and safety concerns	Seizure lacked sufficient exigent basis	Exigent circumstances supported seizure; search and dog use reasonable and justified

Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventory-search regulation must be standard to be reasonable)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory search purposes: property protection, evidence protection, officer safety)
United States v. Johnson, 584 F.3d 995 (10th Cir. 2009) (standing to challenge searches reviewed via Fourth Amendment analysis)
United States v. Varnedore, 73 Fed.Appx. 356 (10th Cir. 2003) (motel guest privacy ends after rental period)
United States v. Croft, 429 F.2d 884 (10th Cir. 1970) (guest privacy implications before/after rental term)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry to protect safety)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (warrantless residence entry generally impermissible absent exigent circumstances)
Armijo ex rel. Armijo Sanchez v. Peterson, 601 F.3d 1065 (10th Cir. 2010) (exigent-circumstances evaluation focuses on objective circumstances faced by officers)