*1 ROBINSON, Appellant, Bobbie Alaska, Appellee.
STATE of
No. 2880. Alaska.
Supreme Court of
April Miracle, J. Asst. Public Defend-
Barbara Shortell, Defender, er, An- and Brian Public chorage, appellant. for Jenicek, Ivan Lawner and Monica Asst. Balfe, Joseph Atty., D. Dist. Attys., Dist. Gross, Atty. Anchorage, and Avrum M. Gen., Juneau, appellee.
OPINION Justice, BOOCHEVER, Before Chief CONNOR, Justices. WITZ and RABINO *2 RABINOWITZ, Justice. Davis was in the bathroom. When Jones wait, indicated that he would Chatman be- posses- Bobbie Robinson was convicted of gan to close the door. Jones asked that it cocaine, 17.10.010, of a sion violation of AS open Chatman, be left who had a small jury a primary after trial. Robinson’s child holding her leg, told the officers that appeal tention in this centers on the denial they could come so open in door sup- his motion to would not create a draft on the press child. evidence obtained as the result of an From position their in allegedly foyer unconstitutional search and sei- of the hotel room,3 zure.1 the officers could see a strainer and glass jar a containing matches and some night On October short straws. The officers suspected that Anchorage Department Police a received these drug paraphernalia. items were manager call from the of the Gold Rush concerning registered guest, Hotel a Bobbie About 30 seconds after the en- officers they hotel, Davis. When arrived at room, tered the Robinson emerged from the manager motioned Investigator Jones and bathroom. Jones testified: Investigator adjoin- Needham into a room Mr. stepped Robinson out and said hello registered the room to Bobbie Davis. to me. I said to hello him. He said what manager gave The them information which you said, do well, want? And I I’m here suspicions might aroused their that there be response in to the hotel. Mr. Davis is illegal activity occurring some sort in registered here. obviously You aren’t suppres- Davis’ room. Jones testified at the Mr. Davis and we both know that. He spoke he sion that after laughed and turned around and walked manager, suspected he regis- man over and sat in down the chair. fact, was, as tered “Bobbie Davis” in Bobbie shirt; Robinson was not wearing a Jones Robinson, a person with whom Jones was testified that he could see top of what previously acquainted. police The prophylactic looked like a protruding from decided a investigation to conduct routine top of Robinson’s belt. After Robinson within the activities room.2 down, sat Needham picked up the strainer. As Jones stood outside the room regis- jumped up Robinson and took the strainer preparing knock, tered to Davis to the door Needham, from saying, “You can’t do that.” opened and a woman started to emerge. Jones saw the prophylactic which contained When Jones showed her badge, his she grams 1.4 of cocaine on the chair where door, it, slammed the bolted and chained Robinson sitting. had been Needham began yell “police.” Jones testified picked up and Jones placed Robinson great activity that he could hear a deal of under arrest. in the room. Jones on the knocked door United States woman, a second has opening without recognized door, that hotel rooms was as well as respond- asked who there. Jones dwellings fall they protections within the ed that officers and re- open fourth quested that she amendment. In door. The wom- Stoner v. Califor- nia, an, Chatman, opened approxi- Ms. the door
mately eight speak inches. Jones asked rehearing Davis; with Mr. Chatman told him that L.Ed.2d 303 the police had years impris- 1. Robinson was sentenced to 10 determine who is in what room so—and if in years suspended; appeal- onment with 5 somebody has doing something illegal, fact it is ed excessiveness of this sentence. Because they they’re so that know that we know that primary issue, disposition our there, we do normally in prompts which them to appeal not reach the sentence issues at this why move. This is the hotels call us. We do time. regularly make arrests simi- lar situations. 2. Jones testified: room approxi- 3.This in the Gold Rush Hotel is routinely things We check these out mately 12 feet 14 feet. number different reasons. Number either Robinson be- or Chatman validates this investigation on Stoner their focused scene found The superior near search. court found that the checkbook cause indi- The checkbook stubs robbery. adequately state did not establish Ms. of a Chat- been checks had Robinson, cated' several man’s or to discovering that Ston- Upon out to hotel. prove hotel order to valid third out and was registered at hotel *3 er However, the party superior consent. court requested the officers his to object held that Robinson’sfailure to the to enter Ston- night permission clerk’s the presence of the officers consent constituted and gave his consent room. The clerk er’s to the search. particularly, supe More the entered the The officers opened door. rior stated: its room and thorough a search the [UJsually the courts do inquire quite incriminating contents, evidence finding searchingly power person into the the Ston- Supreme Court reversed The Stoner. consenting to had Mr. Rob- conviction, had been ruling that it er’s inson not I present certainly been would falling search not on warrantless based in this instance had—had the observa- recognized exceptions one within premises tions . . . made inside the Supreme requirement. The warrant upon . wholly rested the admis- was night clerk emphasized by sion into room the woman whose waive Stoner’s constitutional able to not relationship clearly has not been estab- unam- clerk’s clear and despite the rights here, lished I feel that the court would Su- to the search. biguous consent .The sup- under those circumstances have to Court concluded: preme But press evidence. Mr. Robinson house, or a tenant of a No less than there, having the opportunity to [was] house, a boarding in a occupant of a room intercept entry into premises further consti- is entitled to in hotel room guest against unreasonable protection tutional protection That and seizures.
searches depend left to if were disappear . police] foyer in the [The of an em- discretion upon the unfettered . . And their further that this It follows of the hotel. ployee incursion, were, as it continued into unlawful, a warrant was without search accomplished rest of the room was with omitted)4 (citations knowledge at least Mr. Robinson’s that ease is contention in this There no in that he did implied consent and reason have an actual did not Robinson leave, did ask them not ask them to not hotel in his expectation privacy able secure a warrant. matter Thus, analysis of this our room.5 First, will address the issue of we war- begin premise that must given the offi purportedly consent unless se unreasonable per rantless search The court held by Robinson. cers defined narrowly within one it falls request failure to that Robinson’s requirement warrant to the exceptions emerged he from the leave when has ar The state the fourth amendment.6 consent to their by constituted allegedly given bathroom gued State, 793, 490, 1977); (Alas- California, 483, 510 P.2d Smith v. 797 84 376 U.S. Stoner v. 4. 861, 889, 856, rehearing 893, 1973). L.Ed.2d 11 ka S.Ct. 1330, 940, 12 L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. 377 U.S. Jeffers, 342 v. See United States 303 6.See, g., Hampshire, Coolidge 403 e. v. New 59, 93, 48, 51-52, 95, 64 72 S.Ct. 96 L.Ed. U.S. 2022, 564, 443, 454-55, 29 L.Ed.2d U.S. 91 States, Fung (1951); Eng v. 281 Jem United States, (1971); Katz v. United 576 803, (9th 1960). Cir. F.2d 576, 357, 507, 514, 347, 19 L.Ed.2d 88 S.Ct. State, 834, (1967); 544 P.2d Schraff v. See, g., v. United e. Katz (Alaska 1975); Erickson 587-88 19 L.Ed.2d 1973). (Alaska J., (Harlan, (1967) concurring); & Woods Rohde, Inc. room. In order show into hotel erred in denying the suppress motion to on obtained, search voluntary ground consent to of Robinson’s consent. the state must show that the consent was We next address effect of the unequivocal, specific, intelligently given enter, consent to allegedly given the offi or and uncontaminated duress coercion.7 cers Ms. Chatman. In United States v. have We concluded that burden was not U.S. inmet this case.8 The evidence shows that the United Robinson asked what officers were do- States permission Court held that emerged when he from the bathroom. may to search be obtained from third objected picked up He when Needham possesses who “common only thing strainer. did do was over or other sufficient
request that
officers leave. While there
premises or effects sought
inspected.”
to be
are
in which
circumstances
an authorized
*4
The Court
explain
went on to
the type of
person’s
police presence
valid consent
to
authority which is necessary to validate a
supersede
could
an initial
invalid consent
party
third
consent:
given by
party,9
an unauthorized third
we
presented
are not
with such circumstances
is,
course,
Common authority
not to be
here. Robinson was confronted with the
implied from the mere property interest a
accompli
presence;
fait
of the officers’
third party has in the property. The
not
his consent
pres-
did
indicate
to their
authority
justifies
which
the third-party
way except by
in any
ence
silence. We
consent
.
.
rests
...
on
lightly
have held that consent is not
to be
mutual use of the property by persons
we
to
If
hold that
inferred.10
Robin-
generally having joint access or control
son’s failure to demand that
the officers
most purposes,
so that it is reasonable
consent,
leave
to
amounted
it would mean
recognize
to
that any of the co-inhabit-
that consent could be
slight,
inferred from
ants
right
permit
has the
to
the inspec-
rather
preponderating,
than
circumstances.
tion in his
right
own
and that
the others
Accordingly, we hold that the state did not
have assumed the risk that one of their
showing
meet its burden of
consent to this
might permit
number
the common area
search,
superior
warrantless
and the
to be searched.11
State,
508,
(Alaska
example,
7. Erickson v.
507 P.2d
515
9. For
if
expressly
Robinson had
1973);
State,
252,
v.
Sieziak
454
presence
P.2d
257-58
sented to the officers’
toor
a subse-
1969),
denied,
(Alaska
921,
quent
cert.
396 U.S.
90
Ms. Chatman’s assumed lack of
252,
(1969).
authority
present
problem.
S.Ct.
peared to the
Our review of the evidence con
the de-
would bind
party’s
third
consent
tained
the record
before us reveals that
fendant,
government
that the
secondly,
prove by preponderance
the state failed to
immediately
exist
show that facts did
must
evidence that Ms. Chatman had the
which rendered the third
to the search
prior
authority to consent to the entry of the
binding.12 Concerning the
party’s
short,
officers. In
the state did not demon
the district court found
requirement,
second
to,
joint
strate that Ms. Chatman had
access
prove
had failed to
government
of,
or control
any pur
the hotel room for
actual
that Mrs. Graff had
pose. Anticipating the foregoing conclu
held
The district court
consent to a search.
n
sions, the state makes the further conten
Mrs.
statements
although
Graff’s
tion that relevant evidence of Ms. Chat-
respondent occu-
that she and
the officers
man’s
with Robinson
im
were admissible
the east bedroom
pied
properly
hearsay
excluded as
under the rea
officers,
belief of the
good
faith
prove
soning of Matlock. Although the issue is
extra-judicial state-
they were nevertheless
doubt,
altogether
agree
free from
we
prove
the truth
ments inadmissible
sustaining
court erred in
Ap-
averred. The Court
facts therein
*5
objections,
hearsay
thereby preclud
the
and
Supreme
Court of
affirmed and
peals
proving
ed the state from
Ms. Chatman’s
Supreme
reversed.
States
the United
authority regarding
premises
ques
in
of evidence
that the rules
observed
Court
We thus conclude that
aspect
tion.
this
trials do not
applicable in criminal
normally
the matter
be
supe
should
remanded to the
judge
hearings before
generally govern
suppression
rior court to conduct a further
In this
evidentiary questions.13
determine
purpose
determining
for the
part:
in
stated
Supreme
Court
regard,
whether Ms. Chatman had the authority to
be, certainly there
may
However
give permission
entry
or consent to the
against
rule
be no automatic
should
the officers into the hotel
as well as
pro-
in such
hearsay evidence
reception of
to make the further determination whether
clear to us
equally
it seems
ceedings, and
at the
in
question
reasonably
or not
time
ex-
not have
judge
the trial
should
appeared
the officers that Ms.
Chatman’s
in the cir-
statements
Mrs. Graff’s
cluded
Robinson.
consent would bind
here.14
presented
cumstances
light
foregoing,
In
the case is
no reason for the
further found
The court
to the
court with di-
remanded
the evi-
to have distrusted
district court
suppression
to conduct a further
rections
Mrs. Graff’s declara-
and excluded
dence
opinion.
hearing in accordance with this
At
admissibility of her state-
tions. Given
hearing,
superi-
the conclusion of such a
ments,
concluded that
Supreme Court
Id.,
14.
fact and conclusions of In B., Matter J. H. minor, Appellant. Remanded with instructions. No. 2947. Justice,
BOOCHEVER, concurring. Chief Supreme Court of Alaska. agree majority opinion I with May exception of the statement contained in same applying Footnote standard to premises request to enter as to a request premises. The
to search authorities cited 11 do not with a specifically
Footnote deal authorizing between entry
distinction an authorizing a search. I believe that may occupant well arise where an
situations implied authority has premises an entry premises by those but not have im-
plied authority to A consent to search. opening
search in sense of drawers and portions premises into hidden
delving a much greater privacy
involves invasion of
than mere to the premises admission question
themselves.1 The that I believe is
relevant in this case whether Chat- Ms.
man had to consent to the offi- entry
cer’s into the hotel room. No search subsequently as the items seized view, plain assuming *6 permissible.2
into the room was The case
distinguishable Spietz, from State (Alaska 1975),
P.2d 521 in that no one entering
sented to officer’s the home in case, Spietz and therefore there was no
right go into the home seize items that seen
could be from outside the home. appeal pend- 1965) (consent 16. Jurisdiction of the is retained Cir. to enter room motel receipt findings court’s third did not extend to search of defend- fact and conclusions of law based on the addi- person); Holzhey ant’s v. United suppression tional ordered virtue of (5th 1955) (consent F.2d daugh- Cir. opinion. ter and son-in-law to enter and search their premises where accused lived did not authorize Bussey, 1. See United States v. 507 F.2d personal effects). search of accused’s locked (9th 1974) (confederate’s Cir. occupied by and search of motel room 2. Anderson v. defendant confederate did not extend to 1976); Daygee personal People luggage); defendant’s Davis v. (Alaska 1973). California, (9th State F.2d