Unreasonable Search of a Hotel Room

In some ways, a hotel room is literally a home away from home as patrons are granted the same privacy against an unreasonable search of their hotel room just as they would a search of their residence.

Fourth amendment protection of hotel guests

Photo by: Elizabeth Greene

In order for law enforcement to enter a hotel room that is considered occupied, they must either obtain a warrant or permission from the hotel guest staying in said room. Without either consent or a warrant, a search of a hotel room violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the hotel guest as “a hotel guest is entitled to the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.” (McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451). This protection against a search of a hotel room is lifted only after the guest has checked out, been kicked out, or served with a warrant.

Warrant or permission (from hotel patron only)

Many hotel employees assume that if they are asked by police to let them enter a room that they must comply with the demands. Although hotel employees are allowed access to rooms for cleaning or repairs, law enforcement is not awarded this same privilege. There have been several cases where evidence obtained from a hotel room has been thrown out as the consent to search was from a hotel employee and not the hotel patron. In the case of Stoner v. California (376 U.S. 1964) a night clerk gave police  access a hotel room that was being rented out to Joey Stoner, a suspect in a recent bank robbery. Stoner was not present during the search nor did he give police permission to search the room he was staying in. For this reason, all evidence collected in the room that connected Stoner to the bank robbery was not permitted in court.

Know your rights

Photo by: macaron*macaron(Est Bleu2007)

Hotels and their guests have rights regarding police searches. Hotel employees have the right to refuse a search of their guest registry and a hotel guest can refuse a search of their room. It is important for everyone to understand their rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. For those facing charges after their Fourth Amendment rights were violated, it is recommended they speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney to discuss whether or not the case against them has any basis without the unlawfully obtained evidence.

Threatening Breach of Peace on Public Bus Systems in Utah

The Bus Passenger Safety Act of Utah is “essential to the comfort, safety and well-being of bus passengers” and anyone threatening breach of peace while riding the public bus systems may end up with criminal charges.

Public transportation

Photo by : Garrett

Those who utilize the public bus systems in Utah are likely to have stories of fellow passengers whose behavior was offensive, disturbing, or perhaps just a little odd. What type of behavior is allowed on the public bus systems and what constitutes threatening breach of peace? Violent behavior that involves physical assault or firearm use is understandably against the law on public buses yet so is some behavior that Utah residents may expect to witness while riding on public transportation.

Threatening breach of peace

Utah Code 76-10-1506 describes behavior that is not permitted on a public bus such as “if the person:

(a) threatens a breach of the peace, is disorderly, or uses obscene, profane, or vulgar language on a bus;

(b) is in or upon any bus while unlawfully under the influence of a controlled substance ( . . . )

(c) fails to obey a reasonable request or order of a bus driver, bus company representative, a nondrinking designee other than the driver ( . . . ) or other person in charge or control of a bus or terminal;

(d) ingests any controlled substance, unless prescribed by a physician or medical facility, in or upon any bus, or drinks intoxicating liquor in or upon any bus, except a chartered bus ( . . . ) or

(e) smokes tobacco or other products in or upon any bus, except a chartered bus.”

Removal from bus and possible criminal charges

If a person on a public bus shows any of the above behavior, the bus driver is allowed to physically remove said person from the bus with the help of fellow passengers if needed. The driver also has the option to contact authorities to detain them after they are removed. If law enforcement has to get involved, the person guilty of threatening breach of peace on a bus may face a class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a fine up to $750.

Changes Finally in Store for Utah’s Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP)

After years of the supply for therapy not matching the demand, changes are finally in store for Utah’s sex offender treatment program (SOTP).

One case of many

Waiting

Photo by: Craig Sunter

Speaking with the family of an inmate housed at Central Utah Correctional Facility in Gunnison Utah, their family member has served four years of a one to 15 year sentence for a second degree, sexual related crime. In four years since he was incarcerated, the inmate has waited to attend the Sex Offender Treatment Program without actually making it onto the waiting list. The inmate went before a parole board and was denied immediately after it was determined he had not finished (or even started) the treatment for sex offenders. Months after his parole hearing, the inmate’s name was finally added to the waiting list for the Sex Offender Treatment Program, with therapy expected to begin in 18 long months. After continuing to wait and eventually completing the treatment program, this particular inmate will have served more than half his maximum sentence before there is even a chance at him becoming eligible for parole. Sadly, this is not an uncommon fate among sex offenders currently lost in the prison population.

Waiting for help

According to the Utah Department of Corrections, “Nearly one-third of the inmates in Utah’s prison system are serving time for a sexual offense.” Many of the inmates who are incarcerated for sexual related offenses have been so for years without any behavioral therapy to aid them in their rehabilitation. Utah has a sex offender treatment program in place, however it has recently been determined that there were serious failings in the system, including the way it was being managed, operated, and funded. After decades of using a flawed system, changes are finally on the horizon.

No funding

One of the first problems to note with the current Sex Offender Treatment Program is the lack of funding. The amount of inmates needing treatment for sexual crimes has grown rapidly over the last twenty years without the funding increasing at all during this time. Not only has funding remained stagnant for the sex offender treatment program, a special housing facility meant to house sex offenders while they receive treatment was closed two years ago when the state was unable, or unwilling, to staff it. The sex offender treatment program was then moved to the Utah State Prison in Draper to be poorly managed while those needing treatment are scattered at other facilities around the state to await treatment. The cost of housing those inmates is great in comparison to the cost of treating them.

“Fundamental flaws”

Utah Department of Corrections recently discovered through a performance audit of the Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) that there were “fundamental flaws in the way the SOTP was operating”. The program was outdated, the therapists were underpaid or underqualified, and the sex offenders receiving treatment were receiving a standard blanket therapy and not one tailored to their specific needs. Fortunately, the old director of the Sex Offender Treatment Program has been reassigned and a new director more suited for the job is eager to make changes.

Changes for sex offender treatment program (SOTP)

According to an article posted by the UDC, several changes are set to take place in the Sex Offender Treatment Program. They plan to use “an evidence-based program using cognitive-behavioral approached combined with a relapse prevention approach.” This new approach will help those who are high risk, low risk, disabled, as well as provide help following completion of treatment. They also stated that “other SOTP changes include:

• Conducting rigorous, real-time, and continuous risk assessments of the participants to ensure that the program is working effectively, which include following industry guidelines.
• New processes/criteria for entering, suspending and removing from treatment including removing punitive measures for treatment termination.
• Increased communication with the Board of Pardons and Parole and improved processes to reduce therapists’ administrative tasks for reports so they can focus on treating offenders.
• Introducing on-site aftercare services for offenders to access ongoing counseling, psychotherapy, and meetings in a modified Therapeutic Community setting.
• Implementing a strategic plan with goals, objectives, performance measures and evaluations for the SOTP.
• Adjusting position titles and roles to match the industry standards, treatment team’s duties and responsibilities.
• Working with the Department of Human Resource Management to determine competitive pay for psychologists. “

For those currently facing time for a sexual related crime, there is hope for proper and prompt treatment in the future. Those who are already incarcerated should see the effects of these changes shortly.