784 F.3d 421
7th Cir.2015Background
- On Aug. 29, 2011 Eagan, MN police, responding to a probation officer’s tip that Jason Procknow (an absconder from supervised release) was at an Extended Stay hotel, confronted Procknow in the hotel lobby; he fled, was tasered, arrested, and handcuffed.
- Hotel staff informed officers that Procknow and the registered guest (his girlfriend) were no longer welcome and asked police to clear the room and secure a dog believed inside. Officers then used a hotel key card to enter room 315, found multiple tax-related documents, prepaid debit cards, and photographic evidence in plain view, seized the dog, sealed the room, and later obtained search warrants for the room and Procknow’s car.
- Evidence from the room was later turned over to IRS agent Kuntsman; agents executed a UPS-box warrant, interviewed a witness, and (in 2012) issued and then withdrew IRS administrative summonses after a U.S. Attorney’s office requested an investigation; a grand jury later issued subpoenas and an indictment followed.
- Procknow moved to suppress: (1) evidence from the officers’ initial warrantless entry into the hotel room, arguing he had a privacy interest as an unregistered guest; and (2) evidence obtained by grand jury subpoena, arguing it was tainted by earlier IRS administrative summonses issued for an allegedly improper criminal purpose.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s factual findings, denied the suppression motion, and Procknow pleaded guilty to theft of government money and aggravated identity theft, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Procknow's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of warrantless entry into hotel room | Procknow had a legitimate expectation of privacy as a guest of the registered occupant and entry was warrantless | Hotel terminated occupancy; ejection extinguished privacy; officers reasonably believed hotel consented | Entry lawful because occupants were justifiably ejected (or officers reasonably believed so), ending privacy interest |
| Whether hotel ejection was effective | Ejection was not complete because room was prepaid and refund not tendered | Officers reasonably believed hotel had terminated occupancy; hotel staff instructed officers to clear room | Ejection was justified under Minnesota law and effective for Fourth Amendment purposes |
| Use of IRS administrative summonses for criminal investigation | IRS issued summonses in bad faith solely to further a criminal probe, tainting subsequent grand-jury subpoenas | No DOJ referral was in effect when summonses issued; use was lawful; summonses were withdrawn and produced no usable evidence | Even if improper, no evidence that grand-jury subpoenas were tainted; suppression not warranted |
| Appropriate remedy for withdrawn summonses | Suppress evidence obtained by grand jury subpoenas as fruit of the unlawful summonses | Withdrawn summonses returned/destroyed; no direct evidence from summonses used; suppression of grand-jury evidence improper | Suppression denied; exclusionary rule for statutory violations inapplicable absent constitutional violation or a showing of taint |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (recognizing Fourth Amendment protection for hotel rooms)
- LaSalle Nat’l Bank v. United States, 437 U.S. 298 (administrative summons may not be issued solely for criminal investigation under prior law)
- United States v. Michaud, 907 F.2d 750 (7th Cir.) (discussion whether §7602 amendment altered LaSalle rule)
- United States v. Berg, 20 F.3d 304 (7th Cir.) (noting limits on IRS summons use)
- United States v. Rambo, 789 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir.) (justifiable eviction terminates hotel guest’s privacy interest)
- United States v. Molsbarger, 551 F.3d 809 (8th Cir.) (same: eviction ends expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (statutory/regulatory violations do not automatically trigger suppression when no constitutional violation shown)
- United States v. Akin, 562 F.2d 459 (7th Cir.) (occupancy termination ends hotel guest’s privacy rights)