United States v. Lanier
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7672
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Lanier rented a room at Comfort Suites in Benton Harbor, Michigan; a housekeeper observed what appeared to be drugs in Room 206 after the check-out time; police were allowed to search the room at 11:30 a.m., briefly before the hotel’s grace period ended; cocaine and a scale were found; Lanier was arrested when he returned to the hotel and challenged the search and arrest; district court denied suppression and sentenced Lanier partly below guideline range after a §5K1.1 motion; Lanier pled guilty to a crack-cocaine distribution charge reserving appeal on suppression; the court sentenced Lanier to 40 months, below a 46–57 month guideline range; Lanier appealed challenging Fourth Amendment grounds and the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lanier had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Room 206 at search | Lanier maintained privacy despite 11:00 a.m. checkout and grace period | Hotel practices could extend privacy interests beyond checkout | Lanier had no reasonable expectation of privacy post-checkout under hotel practice and grace period |
| Whether probable cause supported Lanier's arrest | Spears' eyewitness identification plus hotel-entry indicators gave probable cause | Arrest based on inconsistent sightings and lack of corroboration | Probable cause supported arrest based on Spears' identification and corroborating entry indicators |
| Whether the district court procedurally erred in sentencing by treating guidelines as mandatory | Court ignored discretion recognized in Kimbrough/Spears | Judge properly exercised discretion but claimed not to; effectively treated guidelines as mandatory | Court did not err; judge chose not to exercise discretion to depart; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1966) (Fourth Amendment privacy and search concepts cited)
- Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1964) (hotel/guest privacy perspectives referenced)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (standing to challenge searches and privacy expectations)
- United States v. Allen, 106 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 1997) (hotel guest privacy and occupancy rights after end of rental period)
- United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 279 (6th Cir. 2009) (reasonable expectations of privacy in hotel settings)
- Larson v. United States, 760 F.2d 852 (8th Cir. 1985) (extensions of occupancy affect privacy interests)
- Gill v. United States, 16 F. App’x 850 (10th Cir. 2001) (practice of staying past checkout can affect privacy expectations)
- Dorais v. United States, 241 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (hotel practices can extend privacy under certain conditions)
- Owens v. United States, 782 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1986) (extensions of occupancy impacting privacy interests)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (discretion to vary from cocaine guidelines)
- Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (2009) (recognition of discretion in sentencing guidelines (per curiam))
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural reasonableness of sentences)