Stoner v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsent SearchesHotel Room Privacywarrantless searchhotel roomthird-party consent

Facts

After a robbery, police traced petitioner to the Mayfair Hotel in Pomona and went there without a search warrant or arrest warrant. The night clerk told officers petitioner was out, then gave them permission to enter room 404 and unlocked the door for them. The officers searched the room and its contents during petitioner's absence, finding glasses, a grey jacket, and a pistol with ammunition in a bureau drawer. Petitioner was arrested two days later in Las Vegas, and the seized items were introduced against him at trial.

Issue

Whether a warrantless police search of a hotel guest's room is lawful when conducted during the guest's absence with the consent of the hotel night clerk, and not as a search incident to a contemporaneous arrest.

Rule

A warrantless search is unconstitutional unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. A search may be incident to arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest. A hotel guest's Fourth Amendment protection cannot be waived by a hotel clerk's consent; only the guest may waive that right, directly or through an authorized agent, and the Fourth Amendment is not narrowed by agency doctrines or apparent authority theories.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Police in Denver suspect Aaron Pike of burglary. Without a warrant, they go to the Front Range Lodge while Aaron is at work, tell the desk clerk they want evidence from his room, and the clerk unlocks the door and invites them in. The officers search the room and seize jewelry from a dresser drawer.

Is the search most likely constitutional?

Explanation. A warrantless search is invalid unless it fits a recognized exception. Under the majority rule, a hotel guest's Fourth Amendment protection cannot be waived by a hotel clerk's consent. The Court specifically rejected erosion of that right through agency concepts or apparent-authority reasoning. The problem is not limited to drawers or closed containers; the clerk lacked authority to consent to the police search for evidence at all.