Robinson v. State

• Decision Date: 13 October 2021
• Docket Number: No. 1D20-2907,1D20-2907
• Citation: 327 So.3d 1276
• Parties: Gregory Pernell ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

327 So.3d 1276

Gregory Pernell ROBINSON, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D20-2907

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 13, 2021

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Maria Ines Suber, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Lewis, J.

Appellant, Gregory Pernell Robinson, appeals his judgment and sentence for trafficking in fourteen grams or more of methamphetamine, possession of hydrocodone, and possession of paraphernalia, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

Appellant was residing in room 5 of the Youngstown Motel, which is a single-story, multi-unit building with a common exterior walkway running from one side of the building to the other, traversing in front of each motel room door. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant for room 5 based in part on a K-9 sniff of the motel's common exterior walkway that gave a positive alert for illegal drug odors emanating from Appellant's room. During the ensuing search, the police found methamphetamine, hydrocodone, and a digital scale and meth pipe. In moving to suppress the evidence, Appellant argued that the warrantless dog sniff violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches. The trial court denied the motion upon finding that the K-9 sniff was lawful, and the search warrant was valid, because "[p]ursuant to the holding of [ Nelson v. State , 867 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ], the Defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the common areas of the motel, including the walkway in front of his motel room door." A jury ultimately found Appellant guilty as charged, and this appeal followed.

In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact if supported by competent, substantial evidence, but review de novo the application of the law to those facts. Channell v. State , 257 So. 3d 1228, 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). This case presents the question of whether a dog sniff conducted on the common external walkway outside of a motel room constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, which is an issue of law to be reviewed de novo .

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and that no warrants shall be issued, except upon probable cause. Amend. IV, U.S. Const.; see also Art. I, § 12, Fla. Const. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and whether it affords protection depends on (1) whether the person has exhibited an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the search, and (2) whether society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable. Jardines v. State , 73 So. 3d 34, 39–40 (Fla. 2011) (citing Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) ), aff'd sub nom. Florida v. Jardines , 569 U.S. 1, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). "A ‘search’ occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed." Purifoy v. State , 225 So. 3d 867, 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

A person's private residence is accorded a special status under the Fourth Amendment, and a substantial government intrusion into the sanctity of the home constitutes a search within the Fourth Amendment. Jardines , 73 So. 3d at 36–37, 45. A hotel or motel room is considered the private dwelling of the occupant so long as he or she is there legally, and the occupant is entitled to the same rights inside the hotel/motel room as the resident of a private permanent dwelling. See Sheff v. State , 301 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), aff'd , 329 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1976) ; Jackson v. State , 18 So. 3d 1016, 1028 (Fla. 2009) ; Rebello v. State , 773 So. 2d 579, 580 n.2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ; Sturdivant v. State , 578 So. 2d 869, 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). "However, areas which are outside of a hotel room, such as hallways, which are open to use by others may not be reasonably considered as private" as they are public areas where officers have a right to be present. Brant v. State , 349 So. 2d 674, 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

In Nelson v. State , as in this case, the police conducted a sniff test in the hallway outside of the appellant's hotel room and used the K-9's positive alert to obtain a search warrant for his room. 867 So. 2d 534, 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The Fifth District affirmed the denial of the appellant's motion to suppress, rejecting his argument that the police did not have a right to walk the hotel's hallways in search of drugs. Id. The court recognized the general rule that constitutional rights that apply to occupants of private dwellings also apply to hotel guests, but found the rule inapplicable because the appellant "did not have a valid expectation of privacy" as "[a]reas outside of a hotel room, such as hallways, which are open to use by others may not be reasonably considered as private." Id. "[T]he hallway was on the premises controlled by the hotel management and was a common walkway for the use of hotel guests, visitors, employees and probably by the general public"; "the Fourth Amendment was not even applicable to any action that took place in the hallway where the police had the right to be." Id. at 535–36. Cf. State v. Rabb , 920 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (affirming the granting of the appellant's motion to suppress where the police obtained a search warrant for his home based on a K-9 walking from the public roadway in front of his private residence up to the front door and alerting to the presence of drugs; emphasizing that a firm line is drawn at the entrance of the house for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment; and concluding that Nelson neither controlled nor conflicted with its holding, in part because the principle that occupants of a hotel room are entitled to the same Fourth Amendment protections as occupants of a house is not without limitation given that a hotel room is neither as private, nor as sacrosanct as a house).

Appellant's reliance on Jardines is misplaced. There, the Florida Supreme Court held that a dog sniff test conducted at the front door of a private residence is a search under the Fourth Amendment and requires a showing of probable cause of wrongdoing. 73 So. 3d at 36–37, 49, 54. The Court emphasized that a citizen's home is accorded a special, sacred status and the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house, and reasoned in part that a sniff test conducted at a private home can be...