Heather McKinney 1/16/22 Heather McKinney 1/16/22

Legal Question: Do Cops Need a Warrant to Search Your Hotel Room?

This question comes from Austin, who asks:

Can cops just bust into your hotel room without a warrant? We’re watching “Law and Order: SVU,” and the cops had the hotel manager open up someone’s hotel room without the hotel guest’s permission. Can they do that?

Great question, Austin!

CAN BENSON AND STABLER BUST UP IN YOUR ROOM AT THE LA QUINTA?

No, but there are exceptions. Searches of someone’s “residence,” including a temporary residence like a hotel room, are governed by our constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure. That right is found in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons and houses against unreasonable searches and seizures, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Constitutional rights are not absolute. The Supreme Court is empowered with judicial review, meaning it decides whether laws are in line with the Constitution. Whether a search is reasonable or valid under the Fourth Amendment has been refined through case law and statutes throughout the years.

The Court has recognized a few exceptions to the right against unlawful searches. If one of those exceptions is present, the ragtag crew from NYPD’s 16th Precinct would be able to crack that hotel door and dig around in your stuff.

WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS?

If the person being searched gives their permission (called “consenting” to the search), then the police don’t need a warrant. If they don’t have consent and they don’t have a warrant, then authorities need an exception in order to try and perform a lawful search.

The exception used fairly often is known as “exigent circumstances.” Exigent means “pressing or demanding,” so exigent circumstances are situations where there is an immediate need for the authorities to enter without waiting for a warrant. These include a “grave threat” to the safety of the investigating police, members of the public, or their property. It could also be to stop a suspect from escaping. It could also be when there is a belief that evidence will be lost or destroyed by not entering. I’m

The police can’t just be walking by when this happens. They have to have “probable cause” or the reasonable belief that crime has taken place or is currently taking place before they can act.

LoûIf there are no exigent circumstances, no consent, and no warrant to search, there are other ways for police to search. If you leave something illegal out in the open and the cops just happen to see it, then that is not usually considered an unlawful search. This is called the “plain view doctrine.” There's no need to search when anyone walking by could see the contraband. Similarly, if the police are lawfully arresting someone, they are able to search while making that arrest. This is called a “search incident to a lawful arrest.”

WHAT IF THE MANAGER LETS THEM IN?

If the cops aren’t kicking down your hotel door, they may be sweet talking the manager to let them in. Unless they have a warrant or one of the exceptions above exist, the manager can’t let them in your room. Your room is your domain for as long as you've checked in, followed hotel rules, and paid for your reservation.

WHAT IF I CHECK OUT?

Once you check out, your rights stop. Anything you left behind in the now-vacant room could be searched by the police.

Also, if you are forcibly removed from the hotel for violating hotel rules, or if you leave on your own accord before you check out (called “abandonment”), you no longer have claim to the room you were staying in. After that, the hotel management could let authorities in and whatever they find may be used against you.

WHAT IF THEY BUST IN ANYWAY?

Kicking in a door without a warrant and without a valid Fourth Amendment exception would not be a great idea. If that happens, the evidence found could be suppressed by the court or your defense attorney could ask that the entire case against you be dismissed. The police would also open themselves up to civil liability, and you could sue the government. Lawsuits like these are brought under 42 USC §1983, a federal statute which allows individuals to sue the government for violations of their civil rights.

In the episode, there was some mention of “exigent circumstances.” If such circumstances existed - a person was in danger or evidence was in danger of being destroyed - then the cops could come in and search. If the search was challenged later, they could try to argue that their warrantless search was necessary later in court. If no exigent circumstances or other exceptions existed, then the evidence would probably be suppressed, bhuhyy G on or kept out of the proceedings.

In any case, the dedicated detectives who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Stay-the-Hell-Out-of-My-Hotel-Unless-You-Have-A-Warrant Unit.

I hope that answers your question, Austin. Thanks for sending!

Got a question? Submit it here. They can be legal what-if questions, questions on current events, or questions about the legality of actions in TV shows or movies you’ve seen. I never ever want to answer your personal legal questions, so don't send those. Love you, but I don’t do that.

***

This piece first appeared in Sunday Morning Hot Tea. Subscribe so you don’t miss another piece.

Heather McKinney 1/9/22 Heather McKinney 1/9/22

Legal Question: Michael Scott's Diary Drama

This question comes from my dear friend, Todd, who will also co-officiate our wedding soon! Todd asks:

“Watching The Office where Michael’s journal is submitted in Jan’s wrongful termination deposition. He literally says he does not want it submitted. That should be the end of it, right?”

Thanks for the question, Todd! This is an excellent episode. I laugh every time at, “Tan almost everywhere. Jan almost everywhere.” It is also an excellent episode for Michael’s development as a character and standing up for himself.

When answering these questions, I like to establish where the players are and what rules apply. The Office is set in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Jan is suing Dunder Mifflin for employment discrimination and asking for $4 million. Dunder Mifflin is publicly traded and headquartered in New York. Most publicly traded companies are incorporated in Delaware, even if they are headquartered somewhere else. By this point in the series, Jan is living with Michael in Scranton, making her a Pennsylvania resident.

When a resident of one state sues the resident of another state and the amount at issue is over $75,000, this is called “diversity of jurisdiction” and the proper place to file a lawsuit is in federal court. Plus, employment discrimination suits often end up in federal court because they involve federal employment laws.

For this we’ll assume the federal rules apply. One of the federal rules regarding discovery states that “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.”

Although Jan stole the diary, it would be non-privileged and relevant to her claims as it proves the timeline of her relationship with Michael. Despite its shady origin, the court would likely allow its admission.

In the show, once the diary is introduced during the deposition, the attorneys then copy the whole thing and distribute its entirety to both sides. This is because of something called the doctrine of completeness (Rule 106 in the Federal Rules of Evidence). It allows an adverse party (Dunder Mifflin) to require that “any other part” of a writing be revealed after part of the writing is introduced. In this case, since Jan introduced the diary entry about Jamaica, Dunder Mifflin’s attorney had every right to ask for the rest of the diary to be made available as well.

To answer the question, the stolen nature of the diary does not have any bearing on its admissibility. On a gut level, that may not seem right. There is a doctrine known as the “exclusionary rule” that applies in criminal cases, which prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. However, Jan’s employment lawsuit against Dunder Mifflin is a civil case - not criminal, therefore the exclusionary rule does not apply.

If Michael felt wronged by Jan stealing his diary, which she admits to doing, he could press charges against her for criminal theft or file a civil lawsuit against her. However, she asks him to “call it even” by pointing out that he emailed a topless photo to everyone in the company. Michael agrees. Still, if he wanted to call the law offices of James P. Albini and see if he’ll take the case, Michael has that option.

I hope that answers your question, Todd. Thanks for sending!

***

This piece first appeared in Sunday Morning Hot Tea. Subscribe so you don’t miss another piece.