Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied Cameron Watkins’s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in a criminal case involving Fourth Amendment expectations of privacy and an officer’s observation through a motel-room window. Judge Hartz concurred in the denial of rehearing en banc, while Judge Moritz dissented, joined by Judge Federico.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether panel rehearing should be granted.
- Whether rehearing en banc should be granted to reconsider the panel's Fourth Amendment analysis of an officer's unaided visual observation through a gap in motel-room curtains.
Holdings
- Panel rehearing is denied by a majority of the panel.
- Rehearing en banc is denied because the poll of all non-recused active judges did not carry.
Key quotations
“Appellant’s request for panel rehearing is DENIED by a majority of the panel.” (at 1)
“Consequently, Appellant’s request for en banc rehearing is DENIED.” (at 2)
“This court has missed its opportunity to correct a significant and unwarranted erosion of Fourth Amendment protections.” (at 5)
“But individuals who close their curtains have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in what lies behind them.” (at 5)
“The only standard we should apply is the one already provided in the Constitution: reasonableness.” (at 5)
Factual background
The underlying case involved an officer who looked through a roughly one-inch gap in the curtains of a motel-room window and observed the room using unaided vision. The officer's feet were located in a public walkway. The panel opinion treated the observed area as within plain view, while the dissent from denial of rehearing characterized the observation as an intrusion into an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.
Procedural history
The appeal arose from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, case number 5:22-CR-00325-R-1. After the Tenth Circuit issued its panel opinion, Watkins petitioned for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Panel rehearing was denied by a majority of the panel, and the en banc poll did not carry; the court therefore denied both requests.