The Court Affirmed the District Court’S Denial of a Motion to Suppress Holding Procknow Lost his Legitimate Expectation in his Hotel Room after he was ejected by the Hotel and IRS Civil Summonses were not Improperly Used

United States v. Procknow, No. 14-1398. Procknow was convicted of theft of government money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 and aggravated identify theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1), related to his filing of fraudulent tax returns. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress arguing the evidence obtained after police officers’ warrantless entry into his hotel room should have been suppressed and evidence obtained by the grand jury subpoena following the withdrawal of the IRS civil summons should have been suppressed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. First, the Court held that Procknow had no legitimate expectation of privacy in his hotel room after he was arrested and the hotel justifiably ejected him before the officers entered his room. Second, the Court held that suppression was not the remedy because the evidence challenged was not directly derived from the civil summonses.