Opinion
No. 2:03CR00761TC.
June 18, 2004
ORDER
The Federal Grand Jury for the District of Utah indicted Angelia LaRue Mitchell on charges of possession of stolen mail. Ms. Mitchell has brought a motion to suppress evidence that was found during a search of a motel room where she had been staying. Ms. Mitchell contends that the search, which was not authorized by a search warrant, was done in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because the court concludes that at the time the search was conducted Ms. Mitchell had abandoned her interest in the motel room, Ms. Mitchell's motion is DENIED.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The First Contact by the Utah Highway Patrol
On March 22, 2003, Erika Villa was working as a desk clerk at La Quinta Inn in Midvale, Utah. Her shift began at 7:00 a.m. and ended at 3 p.m. During those hours, Ms. Villa was the only person working as a desk clerk.
Early that morning, James Martin, a trooper with the Utah Highway Patrol, noticed a red Dodge automobile parked at La Quinta Inn. As a routine matter, Trooper Martin checked the license plates of the Dodge through his dispatch. Dispatch informed him that the rear license plate was listed as a stolen plate and Angelia Mitchell was the owner of the Dodge.
Trooper Martin went inside La Quinta Inn and spoke to Ms. Villa. He asked Ms. Villa if Angelia Mitchell was registered as a guest at the motel or if anyone who was registered had given a Dodge automobile, with the stolen license plate number, as his or her automobile. Ms. Villa found no record of either Ms. Mitchell or the Dodge automobile. Trooper Martin told Ms. Villa that the red Dodge would be towed from La Quinta. He gave her his business card with his name and telephone number and instructed Ms. Villa to give the telephone number to anyone who asked about the Dodge.
Ms. Mitchell testified that two weeks earlier, her purse, with her Utah driver's license, had been stolen. According to Ms. Mitchell, because she didn't have a driver's license, she could not register for the room herself so a friend, Cedric Wilkins, had rented the room for Ms. Mitchell in his name. (Transcript of March 9, 2004 Hearing (hereinafter "Tr.") at 84.)
Ms. Mitchell Checks out of La Quinta
Later that day, a woman (apparently Ms. Mitchell), who had been staying in Room 266, came to the desk and asked Ms. Villa about the Dodge. Ms. Villa told Ms. Mitchell about the visit by "the sheriff" and that the Dodge had been towed. (Tr. at 7.) Ms. Villa gave Ms. Mitchell Trooper Martin's telephone number. According to Ms. Villa, (this issue was sharply contested by the parties) Ms. Mitchell told her that she was checking out of the motel. (Id.)
Ms. Villa, who was a credible witness and whose testimony was substantiated to a considerable degree by that of her supervisor, Irene Gish, testified about the check-out routine that is followed at the motel. According to Ms. Villa's testimony, when a guest checks out, the clerk pulls up a "posting screen" on the computer. Ms. Villa explained that a posting screen "tells us the days the person is staying, and it shows us whether they paid for the room or not." (Id. at 8.) Ms. Villa further explained that when a guest checks out, the posting screen should reflect a zero balance.
Government Exhibit 1, which was a hard copy of the relevant posting screen for Room 226, showed that the registered occupant of the room, Cedric Wilkins, had arrived on March 14, 2003, and departed on March 22, 2003. The posting screen showed that a balance of $46.81 was owed by the motel to Mr. Wilkins. But Ms. Villa testified that the screen itself, unlike Exhibit 1, did not reflect a balance owed Mr. Wilkins. (Id. at 9-10.) On cross examination, Ms. Villa identified two other motel documents, Exhibits A and B. Exhibit A appeared to be identical to Exhibit 1 except for three final entries showing "miscellaneous income" in the amount of $46.81 and a "refund cash" item, also in the amount of $46.81, dated March 24.
The Second Contact by the Utah Highway Patrol
Sometime that same day, March 22, Trooper Martin spoke by telephone to a clerk at La Quinta Inn. He was told by this clerk (who was not Ms. Villa) that "a lady had come in inquiring about her vehicle, the red Dodge. And apparently when she'd been told that the Dodge had been impounded, she stated she checked out of the room and left in another vehicle." (Tr. at 44.)
Shortly after that conversation, around three in the afternoon, Trooper Martin and Trooper Jacob Hicks went to La Quinta Inn. They spoke with the clerk (apparently, this clerk was Jennifer Mabey. Ms. Mabey did not testify at the hearing). According to Trooper Martin, Ms. Mabey "showed us a — or a room register that showed that the room was actually registered to a Cedric Wilkins. And she, after — after confir — after verbally confirming that the room was checked out, she offered us the key to the room." (Id. at 46.) The clerk then gave the troopers the key to Room 266.
The troopers took the room key and searched Room 266. In Room 266, the troopers discovered "printer boxes," "scanner boxes," "paper work" and "personal items." (Id. at 55-57.) There was also clothing piled on the floor of the closet. The troopers were unable to see the clothes until they had walked "all the way into the room." (Id.)
Trooper Hicks, who went with Trooper Martin to La Quinta Inn, explained how they had verified that Room 266 was vacated: "You know, we said, 'So she's not in the room? She's checked out? She's paid?' She [the clerk] said, 'yes.'" (Id. at 63.)
Ms. Mitchell's Testimony
Ms. Mitchell testified at the hearing. According to Ms. Mitchell, when she was told by the clerk that her car had been impounded (at around 1 p.m.), she did not check out of Room 266 on March 22, but instead, paid for another night. She testified that she and some friends then left the motel and did not return until approximately ten p.m. She testified that when she attempted to open the door to Room 266, it would not open. She went back to the front desk and learned that "the cops had been here and said not to let [her] back in the room." (Id. at 70.) According to Ms. Mitchell, when she learned that she could not use the room, she insisted that she be given a refund, but was told by the clerk that only the manager, Ms. Gish, could give her a refund. Ms. Mitchell testified that two days later, she returned to the motel and Ms. Gish gave her a refund.
For a number of reasons, Ms. Mitchell's version of events was not credible. First, Ms. Mitchell testified that there were two people at the desk at 1:00 p.m., when she was informed that her car had been impounded. (Id. at 74.) But both Ms. Villa and Ms. Gish confirmed that there was only one clerk, Ms. Villa, working at the desk at that time. (Id. at 98-99; 106.) Second, Ms. Gish testified that she had not given a refund to Ms. Mitchell and because Ms. Mitchell was not the registered occupant of Room 266, it would have been against motel policy to give her a refund. (Id. at 106, 107.) Third, Ms. Mitchell's explanations of why she was unable to check into Room 266 herself (id. at 84) and her denial of any knowledge that there were stolen license plates on her car (id. at 92) were not persuasive.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Warrantless searches and seizures of abandoned property do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241 (1960). Whether property has been abandoned is determined on the basis of the objective facts available to the investigating officers, not on the basis of a defendant's subjective intent. United States v. Pitts, 322 F.3d 449, 454 (7th Cir. 2003) (finding that a defendant's subjective intent to later reclaim property was irrelevant to determination of whether he had abandoned the property); see also United States v. Caballero-Chavez, 260 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 2001) ("If the defendants abandoned their interests in Room 222 and its contents, they no longer had legitimate expectations of privacy and are precluded from challenging the search of the room or the duffel bag on Fourth Amendment grounds."). A court must "look solely to the external manifestations of the defendant's intent as judged by a reasonable person possessing the same knowledge available to the government agents involved in the search." Pitts. 322 F.3d. at 454 (internal citations omitted).
Here, the evidence clearly shows that objective facts available to the troopers indicated that the occupants of Room 266 had checked out of the room. First, Ms. Villa testified that Ms. Mitchell had checked out of the room. Ms. Mitchell contends that Exhibits A and B demonstrate that she, in fact, had reserved the room for another night. But, as discussed above, her testimony was not convincing. Whatever discrepancy exists between Ms. Villa's testimony that the posting screen showed a zero balance, and the documentary exhibits, which show a credit due Ms. Mitchell, does not compel a different conclusion. Ms. Villa was firm that when Ms. Mitchell checked out, the posting screen showed a zero balance. And, finally, the troopers testified, and the court accepts their testimony, that they were told that the room had been vacated. That was their reasonable understanding when they searched the room.
Accordingly, Ms. Mitchell's Motion to Suppress Evidence is DENIED.