The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed whether a hotel guest retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room after the posted checkout time.
The Facts
Ryan Mendoza checked into a Pittsburgh hotel for a two-night stay, with a departure date printed on his receipt and an explicitly posted noon checkout time. By 2:00 p.m. on the departure date, hotel staff found no luggage but personal items remaining in the room. Later that afternoon, they discovered a backpack containing what appeared to be wrapped narcotics. Police were called, and officers entered the room without a warrant—with hotel personnel—believing the room to be vacant. Mendoza was later arrested when he returned to the hotel at 10 p.m.
Mendoza moved to suppress the evidence recovered from the warrantless entry, arguing that he had not abandoned his privacy interest in the room when the search occurred about five hours after checkout time.
Key Legal Question
At the heart of the appeal was a Fourth Amendment issue: did Mendoza maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room when police entered without a warrant? To succeed, Mendoza had to establish not just a subjective expectation of privacy, but one that was objectively reasonable—meaning one that society recognizes as legitimate.
What the Third Circuit Held
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, holding that:
- A hotel guest’s privacy interest in the room is analogous to that of a tenant in a rented home, but that interest ends when the guest vacates the room.
- Checkout time is a sensible demarcation for when a guest’s privacy interest ceases because after that time the hotel regains possession and may enter to prepare the room for incoming guests.
- Numerous other circuits unanimously agree that a guest’s reasonable expectation of privacy lapses after checkout time—even if the guest has not formally checked out at the front desk.
Because the search occurred five hours after the posted checkout time, and there was no evidence of a late-checkout arrangement or altered expectations, any subjective belief Mendoza had in continued privacy was not objectively reasonable. The Circuit thus held the warrantless entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Why This Matters
This decision reinforces—and now establishes within the Third Circuit—the general rule that:
- A hotel guest’s privacy interest in a room ends at checkout time, even absent explicit check-out notice at the front desk, and
- Police may rely on a hotel’s assumption of vacant status to enter without a warrant when the guest’s privacy expectation has expired.
Mendoza serves as a reminder to carefully explore whether a guest’s actions, hotel practices, or communications might create an exceptional expectation of privacy, especially if a search occurs close to checkout or under ambiguous circumstances.
Open Questions for Future Cases
The Third Circuit acknowledged open legal questions that were not resolved in this opinion:
- Should there be a “grace period” after checkout time for guests who unintentionally stay past checkout?
- Could specific hotel practices or communications with a guest extend a reasonable expectation of privacy?
These are areas where future litigation may further refine the doctrine.
Suppression issues do not end at trial. Appellate courts continue to refine Fourth Amendment law, and improperly admitted evidence can be grounds for relief on appeal. If your conviction involved a warrantless search or contested suppression ruling, experienced appellate analysis matters.