Chris probably has the rights to assume the police would not enter his motel room unless they had a legal reason to.1. Probably yes. Chris actual expectation of his own privacy. When he was asleep at motel room he was rent in Los Angeles around 2am on Thursday morning with door was closed or maybe locked inside because LAPD knocked that door loudly.2. Probably yes. Chris expectation is the one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. When the officers went through to open the door behind Chris and started searching all the area in the room it means that Chris stand in front of his room to protect from searching and LAPD did not stop even though Chris try to stop them and then they moved to bathroom, the bathroom’s door also closed and they opened it.
Statement of factChris who is a 25-years old white American male. He lives and works in San Francisco, California. He works as a construction worker.
He was in Los Angeles to take the place of another worker who was sick for a few days.Chris was arrested at his room at the Motel 6 just outside Los Angeles, California around 3 am last Thursday. Los Angeles police department (LAPD) had received an anonymous tip that a drug dealer was selling drugs from that room. Before LAPD arrested him, they searched his room and found 250 little bags filled with the drug. The bags were under the sink in the bathroom. Chris was asleep when LAPD went to his motel. The curtains were open, but the door was closed, so they knocked loudly. When Chris opened the door, they told him that they had received a report that there were drugs in the room and asked if they could search his room. Actually, Chris who was not fully awake yet did not say anything. LAPD asked him again if they could enter his room, but again he did not answer. Chris stepped out of the room to get a better look seeing all the flashing lights of the police cars outside, they believed that he was allowing them to go inside by not blocking their way.The officers went searching the room he tried to stop them but the officers ignored him and continued searching. When they got to the bathroom, the door was closed, so they opened the door and eventually found the drugs in the closed cabinet under the sink. Discussion Chris probably has the rights to sue the police would not enter his motel room unless they had a legal reason to or the court order. when Chris was asleep LAPD went to his motel room, the door was closed which mean that he was expectation of his own. When Chris who was not fully awake yet opened the door, did not say anything. Chris just stepped out of the room to get a better look at what he saw. LAPD stepped into searching when they got to the bathroom, the door was closed, so they opened the door. For this view, its show that the LADP did not respect Chris’s privacy. When someone closed their window in their room its mean that they hide something from other people or private things. Regarding to Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) the court held that in order to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched and that his expectation is reasonable; i.e., one which has “a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.” Id., at 143 144, and n. 12. See also Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740-741 (1979). The Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches of “their persons [and] houses” and thus indicates that the Fourth Amendment is a personal right that must be invoked., id 442 U.S. 735, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979). See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places”). id 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). The judge of this case set up two discrete questions. Id 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). The first is whether the individual, by his conduct, has “exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy,” 389 U.S., at 361, 88 S.Ct., at 516 whether, in the words of the Katz majority, the individual has shown that “he seeks to preserve [something] as private.” Id., at 351, 88 S.Ct., at 511. The second question is whether the individual’s subjective expectation of privacy is “one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable,’ ” id., at 361, 88 S.Ct., at 516”whether, in the words of the Katz majority, the individual’s expectation, viewed objectively, is “justifiable” under the circumstances. Id., at 353, 88 S.Ct., at 512.See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S., In addition, the case of Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 307 (1958), It is now settled, for example, that for a routine felony arrest and absent exigent circumstances, the police must obtain a warrant before entering a home to arrest the homeowner. Payton v. New York, supra, at 576. So, too, the Court held in Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), that, absent exigent circumstances or consent, the police cannot search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party, without first obtaining a search warrant directing entry. Id, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), Otherwise, in Chris’s case LAPD did not obtain any warrant before entering in Chris’s room and they still searching and arrest Chris after found the drugs under sink in bathroom.On the other hand, In Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), for example, judges decided that an overnight guest in a house had the sort of expectation of privacy that the Fourth Amendment protects. Judges said: “To hold that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host’s home merely recognizes every day expectations of privacy that we all share. Id U.S. 91 (1990), We stay in others’ homes when we travel to a strange city for business or pleasure, we visit our parents, children, or more distant relatives out of town, when we are in between jobs, or homes, or when we house-sit for a friend. Id 495 U.S. 91 (1990). “From the overnight guest’s perspective, he seeks shelter in another’s home precisely because it provides him with privacy, a place where he and his possessions will not be disturbed by anyone but his host and those his host allows inside. Id 495 U.S. 91 (1990). It is for this reason that, although we may spend all day in public places, when we cannot sleep in our own home we seek out another private place to sleep, whether it be a hotel room, or the home of a friend.” Id 495 U.S. 91 (1990). If we compared this with Chris’s case, as we can see that Chris had reserved the motel room for three nights (Monday to Wednesday) because he has to work in Los Angeles. He rent that room to keep the private things or privacy. However, LAPD had received an anonymous tip that a drug dealer was selling drugs from that room they go to search even though Chris did not allow and the door was also closed and one more thing they did not get warrant from the court.Chris expectation is probably that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable because when the officers went through the motel to open the door behind Chris and started searching all the area in the room it means that Chris stand in front of his room to protect his privacy and LAPD moved to bathroom, the door also closed and they opened it and saw that 25 little bags filled with cocaine and methamphetamine. Additionally, when Chris was asleep the curtains were opened, but the door was closed Chris might be expected that sleeping with curtains open to see the view of Los Angeles from that motel room although he opened the curtains but he also closed the door. Regarding to Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), the judge held that Id, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), There, we explained the justification for extending Fourth Amendment protection to the overnight visitor: “Staying overnight in another’s home is a long-standing social custom that serves functions recognized as valuable by society. Id, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), We are at our most vulnerable when we are asleep because we cannot monitor our own safety or the security of our belongings.” 495 U.S., at 98-99. Back to Chris’s case he staying at the motel in Los Angeles for three nights also considered as long standing social custom that recognize as reasonable in society.As well as, In the Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), so the judge held with respect to an overnight guest. Id, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), For visiting the home of a friend, relative, or business associate, whatever the time of day, “serves functions recognized as valuable by society.” Olson, 495 U.S., at 98. One need not remain overnight to anticipate privacy in another’s home, “a place where [the guest] and his possessions will not be disturbed by anyone but his host and those his host allows inside.” Id., at 99. In sum, when a homeowner chooses to share the privacy of her home and her company with a short-term guest, the twofold requirement “emerg[ing] from prior decisions” has been satisfied: Both host and guest “have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy”; that “expectation [is] one [our] society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’ ” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring). ConclusionChris can probably claim the rights to assume the police would not enter his motel room unless they had a legal reason to because all that polices were violated his legitimate expectation of privacy by going to search his motel room in the midnight without court order. It’s is violated the Four Amendments’ rule and this is not legitimate when the polices come to Chris’s room without permission by the room owner at that moment. Furthermore, His expectation will be prepared to recognize as reasonable in the society because expectation is the social custom that practiced for a long time until now. Everybody in society recognized that expectation is reasonable because people have their own secret and need to keep away from other and also their keep their private things in somewhere. To summarize, Chris probably can claim the right to assume the polices (LAPD) who violet his expectation of privacy and this expectation will be prepared to recognize as reasonable in the society.