On September 24, 2024, the Court of Appeals of Georgia decided Couch v. State[i], in which the court examined whether a hotel guest that remained in the room past the check-out time, without permission of the motel, still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room under the Fourth Amendment.  The relevant facts of Couch are as follows:

On the morning of November 15, 2019, a law enforcement officer went to a hotel in search of a fugitive. From a photograph, the hotel’s front desk clerk recognized the fugitive as someone “associated with” a room in the hotel that was registered to Couch’s father. Couch was an occupant of that room.

The hotel room was scheduled for checkout later that morning, at 11:00 a.m., and neither Couch’s father nor anyone else had arranged with the hotel for a later checkout time. Shortly after 11:00 a.m., the hotel manager and another employee accompanied law enforcement officers to the room. With the manager’s permission, the officers entered the room, where they saw “illicit narcotics” in plain view.[ii]

Couch was charged with multiple drug violations and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.  Couch filed a motion to suppress and argued that he still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room.  The trial court disagreed and denied the motion.  Couch was convicted by a jury and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion to suppress.

On appeal, Couch argued that the warrantless search of his hotel room, where he had not yet vacated the room, although it was past the required check-out time, violated the Fourth Amendment.

The court of appeals noted that the room was registered to Couch’s father.  As such, they set out to determine if Couch had standing to contest the search of the room.  The court stated

In this case, the issue of Couch’s standing “turns on whether [he] had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the [hotel] room.” State v. Delvechio, 301 Ga. App. 560, 562 (687 SE2d 845) (2009). “[R]egistered guests of a hotel room can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their room[.]” Id. This expectation also extends to persons who are “staying at least overnight in the room, at the invitation of the registered guest.” Smith v. State, 302 Ga. App. 128, 134 (2) (a) (690 SE2d 449) (2010).

But the reasonable expectation of privacy generally ends when control of the room reverts back to the hotel at checkout time. See Lindsey v. State, 353 Ga. App. 231, 235-236 (1) (a) (836 SE2d 563) (2019). This rule is well settled and found across jurisdictions. See, e.g., United States v. Ross, 964 F3d 1034, 1043 (II) (B) (11th Cir. 2020) (generally “a short-term hotel guest … has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his room after checkout time, and thus no standing to object to a room search that police conduct with the consent of management after the checkout time has passed”. . .[iii]

Additionally, the court examined a treatise on the Fourth Amendment which is instructive regarding the issue in Couch’s case.  The court of appeals noted

This rule is also discussed in 4 LaFave, Search & Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 8.5 (a) (5th ed.), which states:

If a person has rented a hotel or motel room for a fixed period of time, either by paying rent only for a certain number of days or by indicating at registration an intention to remain only a certain number of days, and by the time set for checkout on the date this period ends the guest has not made the necessary arrangements to extend the rental period, the hotel or motel management may then consent to a police search of the room. Id. at p. 286.[iv]

Couch argued that the hotel had to take additional affirmative steps, such as notifying him in writing at check-in that his reasonable expectation of privacy expires after the check-out time.  He cited a Georgia statute, OCGA § 43-21-3.2, which requires that a hotel clearly state in the check-in papers that the hotel has a right to remove a hotel guest’s property and lock the guest out of the room after check-out time.  In response to this argument the court of appeals stated

[T]he fact that the hotel in this case might not have been able to use that particular statutory remedy does not mean that Couch continued to have a right to possess or exercise control over the room. The issue of what remedies are available to a hotel to deal with a holdover guest is separate from the issue of whether the holdover guest retains his reasonable expectation of privacy in the room. See Ross, 964 F3d at 1044 (II) (B) n. 7 (a hotel’s noncompliance with a statute establishing a misdemeanor offense for failing to leave a hotel after the checkout time “simply means that [the defendant] couldn’t be charged with misdemeanor trespassing for his holdover[, not that he] maintain[ed] an indefinite possessory interest — and a reasonable expectation of privacy for Fourth Amendment purposes — in a hotel room”).[v]

In other words, failure of the hotel to comply with the listed code section means that they cannot avail themselves of the statutory remedy, but it does not grant the holdover guest a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

Therefore, the court of appeals held that Couch lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room after remaining in the room after check-out time without permission of the hotel, and it affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.

Practice Pointers:

  • The registered guest at a hotel/motel and their overnight guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel/motel room.
  • At a short term stay hotel/motel, the reasonable expectation of privacy typically ends after check-out time unless the guest has permission from the hotel/motel to remain past that time.

Note:  Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions.  As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases.  This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

__________________________________________

Citations

[i] Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added)

[i] A24A1034 (Ga. App. Decided September 24, 2024)

[ii] Id. at 2

[iii] Id. at 3-4 (emphasis added)(see also United States v. Allen, 106 F3d 695, 699 (II) (A) (6th Cir. 1997) (“Once a hotel guest’s rental period has expired … the guest does not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the hotel room. …”) (citation and punctuation omitted); United States v. Huffhines, 967 F2d 314, 318 (C) (9th Cir. 1992) (“A guest in a motel has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a room after the rental period has expired.”); United States v. Larson, 760 F2d 852, 855 (A) (8th Cir. 1985) (defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room seven hours beyond the checkout time and five hours “beyond the time he had been given permission to stay without paying the next day’s rent”); United States v. Jackson, 585 F2d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1978) (“it is the present well-settled rule that a guest in a hotel or motel loses his reasonable expectation of privacy and consequently any standing to object to an unauthorized search of the premises after his rental period has terminated”) (punctuation omitted); United States v. Akin, 562 F2d 459, 464 (1) (7th Cir. 1977) (“at the conclusion of the rental period the guest has completely lost his right to use the room and any privacy associated with it”) (citation and punctuation omitted); United States v. Parizo, 514 F2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1975) (“[W]hen the term of a guest’s occupancy of [*5]  a room expires, the guest loses his exclusive right to privacy in the room. The manager of a motel then has the right to enter the room and may consent to search of the room and the seizure of the items there found.”); United States v. Croft, 429 F2d 884, 887 (10th Cir. 1970) (“[A]lthough it is clearly established that a guest in a hotel or motel room is entitled to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, still the protection is dependent on the right to private occupancy of the room. When the rental period has elapsed, the guest has completely lost his right to use the room and any privacy associated with it.”) (citations omitted).

[iv] Id. at 5 (emphasis added)

[v] Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added)