Motion to suppress was properly denied because defendant did
not have a reasonable expectation of privacy where he was a hold-over motel
patron and motel management had contacted police for assistance. Judgment and
sentence affirmed. Brewster v. State, No. CRC 06-87 APANO, (
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
SEAN M. BREWSTER
Appeal No. CRC 06-87 APANO
Opinion filed _________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
entered by the Pinellas County Court
County Judge Edwin B. Jagger
Joseph Hobson, Esquire
Attorney for appellant
Gregory Thacker, Esquire
Assistant State Attorney
ORDER AND OPINION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on
the defendant, Sean Brewster’s, appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by
On July 28, 2006, Brewster and a friend checked into a motel. The friend paid for two nights. The manager of the motel told the two both orally and in writing that check - out time was 11:00 A.M. When Brewster and his friend had not checked out by 11:00 A.M. on July 30, the manager and other motel employees attempted to contact Brewster and his friend by telephoning the room, knocking and yelling through the door, and trying to enter the room --- but it was dead-bolted from the inside. Unsuccessful in attempting to contact the two, the motel manager called the sheriff’s office. Shortly after being called, the deputies arrived at the motel and were given permission to enter by the motel manager. They entered the room at approximately 12:21 A.M. and observed marijuana and drug paraphernalia in plain view. Brewster and his friend were arrested. He filed a motion to suppress, but the trial court denied it.
In this appeal, Brewster claims the police had no right to enter his motel room, and any evidence discovered should have been suppressed. This Court, however, agrees with the trial court. Brewster did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because he was not in lawful possession of the room at the time the police entered.
The appellant cites numerous cases for the proposition that for Fourth
purposes a motel room is considered a private dwelling. See e.g., Wassmer v.
State, 565 So.2d 856 (
In the case at bar, Brewster arguably
did not meet any of the three requirements. He certainly did not meet all three. As noted
in Green v. State, 824 So.2d 311 (
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this Court affirms both the judgment and the sentence.
DONE AND ORDERED in
Joseph A. Bulone
David A. Demers
Cynthia J. Newton
cc: Office of the State Attorney
Honorable Edwin B. Jagger
Joseph Hobson, Esquire