The amended opinion does not reach the standing issue because the Court assumes there is standing and finds probable cause for a search of the motel room.
Court concluded: "the totality of the circumstances known to the officers when they initiated the search of Room 22 gave them probable cause to believe that there was a 'fair probability' that 'evidence of a crime' would be found in the room."
What did the officers know when they entered Room 22?
1) One officer testified that the motel was known for "a lot of drug activity."
2) A driver of a vehicle parked in front of Room 22 had behaved "evasively" in driving earlier that evening.
3) The officers checked the license plates of that vehicle and found that the owner had an outstanding arrest warrant.
4) The registration associated with Room 22 was filled out incompletely by a person called Rogelio, who had listed an automobile other than the vehicle parked in front of Room 22.
5) An officer was familiar with the motel and knew where the toilet for Room 22 would be situated.
6) After this officer heard his colleagues make contact with the occupants of the room, he observed (through a fosted window) a figure enter the bathroom and bend over the toilet. Based upon his experience, he concluded that the person might be trying to destroy something or flush something down the toilet.
The Court concluded that "While none of these considerations, when taken individually, would be sufficient to create a 'fair probability' that evidence of a crime would be found in Room 22, they strike us as more than sufficient to establish probable cause and exigent circumstances when viewed through the 'totality of the circumstances' prism."
The Court affirmed denial of the motion to suppress.
The Court upheld the sentences of 420 months and 234 months.
Judge Griffin dissented: "I would adhere to our original decision, see United States v. Domenech, 623 F.3d 325, 331 (6th Cir. 2010). In my view, the evidence was obtained by the police from a search and seizure not supported by probable cause as is required by the Fourth Amendment."
The dissent found that the Supreme Court has held that authorities "may not enter a private residence without a warrant unless both 'probable cause plus exigent circumstances' exist." The police did not have a search warrant before entering the motel room, so both probable cause and exigent circumstances were required to lawfully conduct a search.
The dissent concluded that "because the vague and general evidence of suspicious activity would have been insufficient to support a drug or weapons crime search warrant, it is similarly inadequate to establish the probable cause necessary to justify the warrantless search at issue."
