United States v. Dusty Peoples
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7098
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Undercover KCPD Officer King observed a stolen Toyota Camry leave the Crown Lodge after a woman (Melissa Tully) and a man left Room 114; King later arrested Tully and found ammunition and an empty holster in the car. Tully told police that a man named “Dusty” (Peoples) had spent the night in Room 114.
- Officer Galloway informed the motel clerk that police had observed the stolen car and that a male associated with it remained in Room 114; the clerk handed Galloway a key so the occupants could be evicted.
- Galloway, using the key, entered Room 114 after knocking and announcing; he found Peoples on the bed and observed a loaded handgun magazine and suspected narcotics in plain view. Peoples was arrested.
- Police obtained a search warrant based on the items observed during the eviction and seized a Glock 42 and stolen electronics; Peoples was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Peoples moved to suppress evidence as the product of an unlawful warrantless search, arguing (1) police used the motel clerk to circumvent the Fourth Amendment (invoking Stoner), and (2) the eviction was not justified under Missouri law (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 315.075). The district court and magistrate judge denied suppression; Peoples reserved appeal as part of a guilty plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer entry via motel clerk was an unlawful warrantless search (Stoner issue) | Peoples: Clerk’s giving of key to officer amounted to consent to police search, so entry violated Stoner | Government: Clerk gave key to effect a lawful eviction, not to consent to a search; therefore Stoner does not apply | Entry was an eviction, not a Stoner-type consented search; Stoner inapplicable |
| Whether eviction was justified under Missouri law when prompted by police reports | Peoples: § 315.075 authorizes eviction only on independent innkeeper belief; police-initiated reports cannot justify eviction absent exigency or bad faith | Government: § 315.075 permits eviction when innkeeper reasonably believes unlawful use; clerk’s decision here was reasonable based on officer reports and no bad faith shown | Eviction was justified; police-provided information did not invalidate eviction absent evidence of bad faith or exigency requirement |
| Whether evidence observed during eviction tainted the subsequent search warrant (fruit of the poisonous tree) | Peoples: Initial entry was unlawful, so plain-view observations and ensuing warrant are tainted | Government: Because eviction was lawful, observations were valid and supported the warrant | Plain-view evidence valid; warrant supported; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (recognizing "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine)
- Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (hotel clerk cannot consent to police search of guest room)
- United States v. Rambo, 789 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir. 1986) (eviction ends guest’s Fourth Amendment standing; control reverts to management)
- Young v. Harrison, 284 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2002) (justifiable eviction terminates hotel guest’s privacy protection)
- United States v. Molsbarger, 551 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2009) (disruptive or unauthorized hotel conduct invites eviction and loss of expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Conner, 127 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 1997) (Fourth Amendment protections extend to temporary dwellings such as motel rooms)