State v. Randy Dale Adams

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 3, 2017
• Docket: 05-16-01045-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed August 3, 2017.

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01045-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant V. RANDY DALE ADAMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-34086-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Brown The State of Texas appeals an order granting Randy Dale Adams’s motion to suppress

evidence. In a single issue, the State contends the trial court abused its discretion in granting

Adams’s motion. Because we agree, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On July 10, 2014, Irving police officers went to a Motel 6 and requested a copy of its

guest registry. The motel manager voluntarily gave the officers the registry. The officers then

checked the names on the registry for warrants. As a result, police discovered Adams was

staying at the motel and also that he had a warrant for his arrest. Police knocked on his motel

room door and asked for consent to search the room. Adams consented and police found

methamphetamine. Adams filed a motion to suppress complaining that the investigation that enabled police

to locate him violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

and Article 1, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution. The trial court granted Adams’s motion. In a

single issue, the State contends the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress because

Adams had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel registry. We agree.

The Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 9 protects individuals from unreasonable

searches and seizures. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 9; see also Ex parte

Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152, 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The purpose of both provisions is to

safeguard an individual’s legitimate expectation of privacy from unreasonable governmental

intrusions. Hankston v. State, 517 S.W.3d 112, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). Under the third-

party doctrine, police are not prohibited from obtaining information revealed to third parties,

even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited

purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed. Smith v. Maryland,

442 U.S. 735, 477 (1979); Hankston, 517 S.W.3d at 117; Ford v. State, 477 S.W.3d 321, 328

(Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

Adams’s motion to suppress was based on his contention that he had a reasonable

expectation of privacy in the motel registry. However, the only information contained on the

registry was information Adams revealed to a third party, the motel. Adams had no reasonable

expectation of privacy in that information. Hankston, 517 S.W.3d at 117; Ford, 477 S.W.3d at

329. We therefore conclude the trial court abused its discretion in granting Adams’s motion to

suppress.

–2– We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

/Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

161045F.U05

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 of Dallas County, Texas No. 05-16-01045-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F14-34086-K. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Justices RANDY DALE ADAMS, Appellee Francis and Schenck participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order granting Randy Dale Adams’s motion to suppress is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of August, 2017.

–4–