941 F.3d 1058
11th Cir.2019Background
- On July 21, 2017, federal/state task-force officers surveilled a Pensacola motel to arrest Wali Ross on outstanding felony warrants; Ross was not a registered guest.
- Between ~9:00–9:30 a.m. officers observed Ross leave Room 113, return briefly, then flee on foot when he saw police; his truck remained in the motel lot and the door to Room 113 was closed and locked.
- About ten minutes after the chase began, two officers used a motel key and the registration (room rented in another’s name) to enter Room 113 without knocking, performed a protective sweep, and observed a firearm in plain view; they seized the gun.
- Around 11:00 a.m. motel management told ATF agents they could search Room 113 after the hotel’s standard checkout time; with management’s consent shortly after 11:00 a.m. agents searched and found drugs and paraphernalia.
- Ross moved to suppress evidence from both searches; the district court denied suppression. He pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Ross's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did Ross abandon his motel room (Fourth Amendment standing) after fleeing, as to the initial entry and sweep? | Ross said his flight did not indicate intent to relinquish the room or its contents; he retained a privacy interest. | Gov't argued flight amounted to abandonment so Ross lacks standing to challenge either search. | Court: Govt did not meet burden to prove abandonment; Ross had standing to challenge the initial entry/sweep. |
| 2) Was the initial warrantless entry and protective sweep lawful (merits)? | Ross argued officers lacked reasonable belief he was inside and thus no basis to enter or sweep. | Gov't said officers reasonably believed Ross was in the room (vehicle present, short chase, no one left to guard room) and had arrest-warrant authority and exigent-circumstance support. | Court: Entry and limited protective sweep were lawful; officers reasonably believed Ross was inside and could seize firearm in plain view. |
| 3) Did Ross retain a reasonable expectation of privacy after the motel’s 11:00 a.m. checkout (standing for second search)? | Ross contended post-search evidence was tainted by the first illegal entry and that he retained possessory interest absent formal eviction notice. | Gov't argued guest loses expectation of privacy at checkout; management can consent to search after checkout. | Court: Short-term hotel guest loses reasonable expectation of privacy at checkout; Ross had no standing to challenge the post-checkout consent search. |
| 4) If initial entry unlawful, was the post-checkout search nevertheless valid (consent / inevitable discovery / independent source)? | Ross argued second search would not have occurred but for the initial unlawful intrusion. | Gov't defended search as valid via motel consent and asserted inevitable-discovery/independent-source doctrines. | Court: Because Ross lacked standing to challenge the post-checkout search, court did not reach merits of consent or doctrines; district court ruling affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (framework for reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964) (hotel-guest privacy protections)
- United States v. Sparks, 806 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2015) (abandonment and Article III standing discussion)
- United States v. Williams, 871 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2017) (limited authority to enter dwelling to effectuate arrest warrant; protective-sweep standard)
- United States v. Edwards, 441 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1971) (abandonment after flight from police in vehicle context)
- United States v. Ramos, 12 F.3d 1019 (11th Cir. 1994) (burden and factors for abandonment; post-checkout key possession not dispositive)
- United States v. Savage, 564 F.2d 728 (5th Cir. 1977) (noting relinquishment of motel room at checkout time)
- United States v. Parizo, 514 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1975) (manager’s right to enter/examine room after checkout)
- United States v. Lanier, 636 F.3d 228 (6th Cir. 2011) (rejecting extension of privacy past checkout based on uncommunicated hotel practices)
- United States v. Magluta, 44 F.3d 1530 (11th Cir. 1995) (officers need not be absolutely certain suspect is inside; may make reasonable inferences)