State v. Minatra

• Decision Date: 02 June 2022
• Docket Number: 03-20-00160-CR
• Parties: The State of Texas, Appellant v. Robert Brandon Minatra, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

The State of Texas, Appellant v. Robert Brandon Minatra, Appellee

No. 03-20-00160-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin

June 2, 2022

Do Not Publish

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF COMAL COUNTY NO. 2018CR0338 HONORABLE CHARLES A. STEPHENS II, JUDGE PRESIDING

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

The State of Texas appeals the trial court's order granting a motion to suppress evidence filed by Robert Brandon Minatra who was charged with the offense of interference with a public servant. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art 44.01(a)(5); Tex. Penal Code § 38.15(a)(1). Minatra argued that the charge was based on an illegal entry by police into a hotel room to arrest him. The State contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the motion to suppress and alternatively, that additional findings of fact and conclusions of law are necessary. We will reverse the trial court's order and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

During the February 4, 2020 suppression hearing, the trial court heard evidence that a hotel manager and the spouse of a guest^[1] at the Howard Johnson hotel in New Braunfels called police with complaints about the behavior of another guest, later identified as Minatra. A former front-desk clerk, Debra Lynn Smith, testified that during her 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift at the hotel on November 13 2017, she saw a "disrespectful" and "obnoxious" hotel guest who "had been drinking" and looked like Minatra. Smith further testified that "my managers live upstairs and watch the cameras" and that one of the hotel managers called police that night. Smith denied receiving guests' complaints or calling police herself. She also denied knowing whether the hotel had a written policy on evictions, but she stated that a hotel guest could be evicted for "bothering the other guests."

Sergeant Jeff Meier and Officer Matthew Burdick, both of the New Braunfels Police Department, responded to the scene. Sergeant Meier arrived at 11:56 p.m., and Officer Burdick arrived shortly after midnight. Sergeant Meier's body mic and dash cam recording from his patrol vehicle was admitted into evidence.^[2] He entered the hotel lobby and greeted a woman at the front desk.^[3] On the recording-over the hotel phone ringing-the woman told Sergeant Meier that "the customer in 213," is "drunk," and is "disturbing his neighbors," and "they've been calling." She then said, "This is the key." Sergeant Meier asked if it was the key "to 213," and she agreed before stopping the conversation to answer a phone call from a hotel guest.

Then a man who identified himself as hotel manager Amish Patel greeted Sergeant Meier and spoke with him. Patel identified Minatra as a hotel guest who drank too much, woke up other customers, and started "calling over here" and arguing. Patel said that he moved four customers to other rooms because of Minatra's behavior. Sergeant Meier asked if Patel wanted Minatra "kicked out" of the hotel, and Patel said, "Yeah," noting that he had already received multiple complaints. Patel reported that Minatra was the only guest in room 213 and was staying for just one night. Patel then gave the police a room key.^[4]

Sergeant Meier and Officer Burdick went upstairs to Minatra's hotel room. Sergeant Meier knocked on the door with his fist and then with a metal flashlight, announced his presence as police, asked Minatra to open the door, and said that they needed to talk. There was no response, but Sergeant Meier heard what sounded like furniture being moved behind the door.

Using the key card provided by the hotel staff, Sergeant Meier unlocked the door, which opened only partially because the chain lock was engaged. Sergeant Meier saw Minatra, who appeared intoxicated "[b]ased upon the smell of intoxicants on his breath" and his "bloodshot, watery eyes." He told Minatra that "management want[ed] him gone." Sergeant Meier testified that he "was giving [Minatra] notice to leave the premises" but that "[Minatra] wanted to talk over me and try to argue."

Sergeant Meier repeated to Minatra, "Management does not want you here." Sergeant Meier said that he would close the door and that Minatra should unlock the chain lock and open the door. After waiting "a lot longer than it would [take] to normally remove a chain from the door," Sergeant Meier used the key card to open the door a second time. This time, he found that Minatra had wrapped the electrical cord from an iron around the door handle and the sink faucet to prevent entry. When Sergeant Meier asked Minatra to take it off the door, Minatra replied, "You figure it out." Sergeant Meier denied that Minatra ever gave any indication that he was going to leave after receiving notice that management did not want him there. Leaning into the door to break the electrical cord, Sergeant Meier entered the room and arrested Minatra for "interference with public duties." Officer Burdick's testimony at the suppression hearing provided a similar account of the events leading to Minatra's arrest. Minatra testified briefly as to his understanding that the key card he received entitled him to privacy in his hotel room for the evening.

After the evidence closed and counsel concluded their arguments, the trial court noted that this Court ruled for a defendant in a case that discussed "pretty much everything we have talked about today," although the trial court also noted that the Court of Criminal Appeals had granted a petition for discretionary review. See generally Tilghman v. State, 576 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. App.-Austin 2019), rev'd, 624 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). The trial court stated, "Under that case I think I have to grant the Motion to Suppress." A written order issued reflecting that ruling.

The State filed its notice of appeal and requested that the trial court make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The State then moved to abate this appeal for entry of those findings and conclusions and later sought additional findings and conclusions. See State v. Minatra, No. 03-20-00160-CR, 2020 Tex.App. LEXIS 4627, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin June 23, 2020, order); State v. Minatra, No. 03-20-00160-CR, 2020 Tex.App. LEXIS 3317, at *2 (Tex. App.-Austin Apr. 21, 2020, order).

On remand, the trial court made its initial findings of fact and conclusions of law, followed by its additional findings and conclusions. Minatra relies on a subset of the trial court's fact findings in support of his appellate arguments:

Findings of Fact

• The parties stipulated that it was a warrantless arrest.

• A person contacted 911 about a guest being disruptive to other guests at the hotel. The person who called 911 was not staying at the hotel.

• Ms. Smith was not aware of a hotel policy regarding notice of termination and eviction of hotel guests and did not review one, if it existed, with guests.

• Upon their arrival, Officers asked Mr. Patel if he wanted Mr. Minatra removed, and Mr. Patel agreed with the suggestion of the Officers. Mr. Patel did not request law enforcement assistance to evict Mr. Minatra until after eviction was suggested by the Officers. No other hotel employee requested Mr. Minatra be evicted prior to the suggestion by law enforcement.

• Officer Meier was provided a key to Room 213 by an employee of the hotel.

• Upon approaching the hallway and door to room 213, there was no disturbance and the area was quiet. No further action was taken by a hotel employee until after Mr. Minatra was arrested.

• Officers knocked on the door to room 213 and asked Mr. Minatra to "open up" the door and identified themselves as law enforcement. The Officers announced that they needed to talk with Mr. Minatra.

• Officer Meier utilized the room key that had been given to him to make entry into Mr. Minatra's hotel room. After opening the door, Officers found the door chain to be engaged behind the door.

• Officer Meier stated to Mr. Minatra "Open up . . . here's the deal, management doesn't want you here anymore."

• There was no credible evidence that a crime had been committed by Mr. Minatra at the time law enforcement sought to evict Mr. Minatra, nor when they forcefully opened his door.

• Law enforcement took no steps to ascertain the terms of the cont[r]act for stay between Mr. Minatra and the Howard Johnson hotel, and the contract was not offered into evidence.

• Prior to the officer arriving at the room occupied by the Defendant, there had been no attempt to give notice of termination of the Defendant's right to remain in the hotel room by the hotel staff.

• Prior to the officer arriving at the room occupied by the Defendant, there had been no attempted eviction of the Defendant.

• No evidence was presented regarding the hotel policies related to disturbances made by hotel guests.

• No evidence was presented regarding whether the Defendant had paid some[, ] all[, ] or none of the amount due for occupancy of the room.

• No evidence was presented regarding whether the Defendant had ever been contacted regarding the alleged disturbance caused by the Defendant.

The trial court's conclusions of law stated:

Conclusions of Law

• The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

• A search, conducted without a warrant, is per se unreasonable, subject to certain 'jealously and carefully drawn' exceptions. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S 103, 109, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006).

• The Fourth Amendment extends to hotel rooms. Moberg v. State, 810 S.W.2d 190, 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

• The rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are not to

...