Right to Privacy in Restroom Not Absolute
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Link here:
Right to Privacy in Restroom Not Absolute
by Jim Suhr
ST. LOUIS (AP) - A man found partly disrobed with a woman, cocaine and marijuana in the one-person restroom of an Iowa convenience store in an area known for prostitution had no absolute right to privacy, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
An 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously rejected Lonnie Maurice Hill's claim that police who found him with the woman and drugs breached his Fourth Amendment right to privacy, making the drugs illegally seized and unusable as evidence.
Other courts have held that the right of privacy in bathrooms varies case to case, with some judges holding that a stall in a public restroom is not a private place when used for something other than its intended purpose.
"The Fourth Amendment protects people and not places," Judge Donald Lay wrote for the three-judge 8th Circuit panel. In Hill's case, "it was not a single person using the single toilet restroom but two persons of opposite gender and, under the circumstances, we hold that they had a diminished expectation of privacy which had expired by the time the officers arrived."
When it comes to restroom privacy, "we have never held that this expectation lasts indefinitely," Lay wrote.
The 8th Circuit also cited legal precedent finding that an expectation of privacy in businesses "is different from, and indeed less than, a similar expectation in an individual's home."
Such cases, Lay wrote, "recognize that regardless of one's subjective expectation of privacy in a public restroom," society's recognition of that expectation is limited by the bathroom's design, location and "the probability that one will be asked to surrender use of the restroom to others."
Clemens Erdahl, an Iowa attorney for Hill, said it remained unclear whether his client would further appeal the matter, including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.
But Erdahl suggested the case left some things unanswered, including hypothetically whether a married couple would be allowed to occupy a single-person bathroom simultaneously.
At the convenience store in question, he said, the sign said "Restrooms," with a symbol for each gender.
"That sign was a little misleading and certainly ambiguous," Erdahl said.
Hill was arrested in 2003 after a convenience store clerk in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, called police to report suspicious activity - a man and woman entering the site's small, one-person restroom for use by either gender.
Police who responded within minutes knocked anonymously on the bathroom door but got no answer. When an officer rapped on the door with his flashlight, "he heard a jingle like a belt buckle but otherwise no response," Lay wrote.
When an officer unlocked the door, someone in the restroom relocked it. After the officer unlocked the door again, a woman squeezed out moments before Hill followed, his pants undone and loosely held by a belt. Hill saw the officer and re-entered the bathroom before being arrested.
Inside, police found a small bag of marijuana and two clear baggies of cocaine atop a metal wastebasket near the toilet, along with a metal scale.
Hill was indicted on drug-related charges. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in April to four months behind bars.
In Tuesday's ruling, Lay wrote that "Hill and his female companion occupied the restroom in a manner for which it was not designed, and remained there after being asked to leave."
"Under these circumstances, we hold that whatever reasonable expectation of privacy Hill and his companion had expired by the time the officers arrived," Lay wrote.
Still, the judge noted, each case should be weighed individually, and that "clearly, our conclusion regarding Hill and his companion may stand on different footing than say a child and a parent or where one person because of a disability or some other medical reason may need assistance."
Extra credit and /insightful bonuses to the Judges for realizing that each case has to be decided individually.
Darwin awards to the perpetrators in this case, as they should have sought out a better place for their purposes. I guess the thought of a hotel room didn't occur to them. Or, perhaps, they didn't want to waste the money for that (maybe they were thinking way ahead and realized they'd need the money for bail).
Either way, something to remember - your right to privacy doesn't always extend to the use of a restroom.
BTW, extra credit for any one that can really find the right to privacy in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Right to Privacy in Restroom Not Absolute
by Jim Suhr
ST. LOUIS (AP) - A man found partly disrobed with a woman, cocaine and marijuana in the one-person restroom of an Iowa convenience store in an area known for prostitution had no absolute right to privacy, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
An 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously rejected Lonnie Maurice Hill's claim that police who found him with the woman and drugs breached his Fourth Amendment right to privacy, making the drugs illegally seized and unusable as evidence.
Other courts have held that the right of privacy in bathrooms varies case to case, with some judges holding that a stall in a public restroom is not a private place when used for something other than its intended purpose.
"The Fourth Amendment protects people and not places," Judge Donald Lay wrote for the three-judge 8th Circuit panel. In Hill's case, "it was not a single person using the single toilet restroom but two persons of opposite gender and, under the circumstances, we hold that they had a diminished expectation of privacy which had expired by the time the officers arrived."
When it comes to restroom privacy, "we have never held that this expectation lasts indefinitely," Lay wrote.
The 8th Circuit also cited legal precedent finding that an expectation of privacy in businesses "is different from, and indeed less than, a similar expectation in an individual's home."
Such cases, Lay wrote, "recognize that regardless of one's subjective expectation of privacy in a public restroom," society's recognition of that expectation is limited by the bathroom's design, location and "the probability that one will be asked to surrender use of the restroom to others."
Clemens Erdahl, an Iowa attorney for Hill, said it remained unclear whether his client would further appeal the matter, including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.
But Erdahl suggested the case left some things unanswered, including hypothetically whether a married couple would be allowed to occupy a single-person bathroom simultaneously.
At the convenience store in question, he said, the sign said "Restrooms," with a symbol for each gender.
"That sign was a little misleading and certainly ambiguous," Erdahl said.
Hill was arrested in 2003 after a convenience store clerk in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, called police to report suspicious activity - a man and woman entering the site's small, one-person restroom for use by either gender.
Police who responded within minutes knocked anonymously on the bathroom door but got no answer. When an officer rapped on the door with his flashlight, "he heard a jingle like a belt buckle but otherwise no response," Lay wrote.
When an officer unlocked the door, someone in the restroom relocked it. After the officer unlocked the door again, a woman squeezed out moments before Hill followed, his pants undone and loosely held by a belt. Hill saw the officer and re-entered the bathroom before being arrested.
Inside, police found a small bag of marijuana and two clear baggies of cocaine atop a metal wastebasket near the toilet, along with a metal scale.
Hill was indicted on drug-related charges. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in April to four months behind bars.
In Tuesday's ruling, Lay wrote that "Hill and his female companion occupied the restroom in a manner for which it was not designed, and remained there after being asked to leave."
"Under these circumstances, we hold that whatever reasonable expectation of privacy Hill and his companion had expired by the time the officers arrived," Lay wrote.
Still, the judge noted, each case should be weighed individually, and that "clearly, our conclusion regarding Hill and his companion may stand on different footing than say a child and a parent or where one person because of a disability or some other medical reason may need assistance."
Extra credit and /insightful bonuses to the Judges for realizing that each case has to be decided individually.
Darwin awards to the perpetrators in this case, as they should have sought out a better place for their purposes. I guess the thought of a hotel room didn't occur to them. Or, perhaps, they didn't want to waste the money for that (maybe they were thinking way ahead and realized they'd need the money for bail).
Either way, something to remember - your right to privacy doesn't always extend to the use of a restroom.
BTW, extra credit for any one that can really find the right to privacy in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
PolMach Forums
