Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BENNETT, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.....................................824 II. FINDINGS OF FACT......................................................825 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS .......................................................828 A. Standing..............................................................829 B. Entry And Arrest......................................................831 1. Did the door open by consent or upon a demand under color of authority? .........................................................832 2. Probable cause.....................................................838 a. Detective Iddings’s observations..................................838 b. Collective knowledge............................................840 3. Warrantless entry and arrest.........................................843 a. The Payton decision.............................................843 b. The exigent circumstances exception to the Payton rule..............845 c. Exigent circumstances here......................................848 i. Safety considerations........................................848 ii. Destruction of evidence......................................850 4. Summary..........................................................850 C. Search And Seizure.....................................................850 1. Leon and the “good-faith” exception...................................851 a. The Leon decision...............................................851 b. The Fletcher-White line of authority..............................852 c. “Good faith” here...............................................852 2. Searches incident to warrants........................................854 a. The “independent source” rule....................................855 b. The “independent source” analysis here............................857 i. Probable cause prong........................................857 ii. The motivation prong........................................858 IV. CONCLUSION............................................................859 Our Constitution sometimes places high demands on our law enforcement officers not only to do the right thing, but to do it at the right time in the right way. In this case, the defendants were caught with obvious fruits of criminal, activity about them. However, they challenge their arrests and the seizure of evidence on the ground that law enforcement officers violated constitutional standards on both when and how seizures of persons and things must be done. Although the government asserts that the defendants opened the door to their motel room by consent when officers knocked, the defendants contend that they opened the door in response to a demand for entry under color of authority. The defendants also contend that their arrests and subsequent seizures of evidence violated the Fourth Amendment, because the officers did not wait for an arrest warrant before entering their motel room to arrest them. The court must consider whether the defendants consented to the entry of police officers into their motel room or instead acquiesced to a show of authority; whether officers had probable cause and exigent circumstances justifying an immediate entry of the motel room and arrest of the defendants without a warrant; whether any constitutional inadequacies in the seizure of evidence may nonetheless be excused under the Leon “good-faith” exception; and whether the “independent source” rule will salvage the constitutionality of search warrants and seizures pursuant to the warrants, when the warrants were obtained after the officers’ entry into the motel room and were based in part on information gained by that assertedly unconstitutional entry. I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The criminal eases in which the motions to suppress evidence now before the court are pending are in federal court by virtue of federal firearms charges. In a two-count indictment returned on February 22, 1996, defendant Larry Duane Conner is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e)(1), and possession of a stolen firearm shipped in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2). In a separate two-count indictment also returned on February 22, 1996, defendant John Charles Tilton is charged with identical offenses. On April 25, 1996, defendant Conner filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the execution of a state search warrant on January 2,1996, for a motel room registered in his name and occupied by both Conner and Tilton. In that motion, Conner also moves to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officers following his arrest. On May 7, 1996, Conner filed an amendment to his motion in which he moves to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the execution of another state search warrant, also on January 2,1996, but this time at his residence, following the search of the motel room. Conner contends in his amendment to his motion that evidence obtained pursuant to the second warrant is “derivative evidence” obtained from the prior illegal police activity at the motel, and therefore must be suppressed as the fruit of the poisonous tree. On April 26, 1996, the court granted Conner’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress and set Conner’s motion down for hearing. On May 8,1996, defendant Tilton also filed a motion to suppress evidence that mirrors Connor’s original motion. Tilton’s motion again seeks to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the execution of the state search warrant for the motel room where Conner and Tilton were staying. Tilton’s motion also seeks to suppress any statements Tilton made to law enforcement officers following his arrest. On May 13,1996, after the defendants filed their respective motions, the United States moved to consolidate the evidentiary hearing for the two eases. Conner and Tilton consented to the consolidation. On May 14, 1996, the Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, a senior judge of this district, granted the motion to consolidate and ordered that an evidentiary hearing on defendant Tilton’s motion to suppress be consolidated with the evidentiary hearing already set by this court for defendant Conner’s motion. The United States timely resisted Conner’s and Tilton’s motions. The government argues that the police gained consensual visual access to the defendants’ motel room when Tilton voluntarily opened the door. The government further argues that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrests of the defendants. Finally, the government contends that, even if Conner’s and Tilton’s arrests violated the Fourth Amendment, the evidence found in the motel room and at Conner’s residence is nonetheless admissible under the Leon “good-faith exception.” An evidentiary hearing on the defendants’ motions was held on June 21, 1996. At the hearing, the United States was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Michael Hobart. Defendant Conner was represented by Kevin W. Teehau of the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Des Moines, Iowa. Defendant Tilton was represented by counsel Martha M. MeMinn of Sioux City, Iowa. At the hearing, the United States presented the testimony of Sergeant Doug Young, Officer Steve Polak, and Officer Larry Iddings of the Sioux City Police Department. Defendants offered the testimony of Wendie Oestmann and defendant Tilton. At the close of the evidentiary hearing the court stated that it would permit the parties to file supplemental briefs and then allow the parties oral arguments. The parties subsequently filed supplemental legal memoranda in support of their respective positions, and the court entertained oral arguments on the motions to suppress on August 20, 1996. At the end of oral arguments, the court stated that it would permit the parties to file supplemental briefs solely on the question of the applicability of the “good-faith exception” established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). After the parties filed their supplemental legal memoranda, the court held a further hearing on October 16, 1996, on the applicability of the Leon good-faith exception in light of some of Leon’s Eighth Circuit progeny, such as United States v. Fletcher, 91 F.3d 48, 51-52 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. Kiser, 948 F.2d 418 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 983, 112 S.Ct. 1666, 118 L.Ed.2d 387 (1992); and United States v. White, 890 F.2d 1413 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 825, 111 S.Ct. 77, 112 L.Ed.2d 50 (1990). This matter is now fully submitted. II. FINDINGS OF FACT The court makes the following findings of fact solely for the purpose of disposing of the present motions to suppress. On December 25, 1995, a burglary was reported at the residence of Golby Uhlir in Sioux City, Iowa. The burglary occurred between December 23, 1995, and December 24, 1995. Property stolen in the burglary included a large coin collection, jewelry, silver place settings, and three handguns. Uhlir informed investigating law enforcement officers, including Sergeant Doug Young and Detective Steve Polak of the Sioux City Police Department Detective Bureau, that the stolen coins and currency had been encased in protective plastic coverings. Uhlir also reported that the stolen coins had been stored in maroon, gold, and blue boxes, which in turn were kept in several brown briefcases. Uhlir also gave the law enforcement officers descriptions of the handguns taken from his residence. On the morning of January 2,1996, Deputy Dave Fox of the Woodbury County Sheriffs Office received a telephone call from a person who wished to remain anonymous. This individual informed Deputy Fox that Larry Conner and John Tilton had burglarized the Uhlir residence. The anonymous tipster further told Deputy Fox that Conner and Tilton were staying at a motel or hotel in Sioux City and were driving a red Pontiac Fiero with Iowa license plate WEH624. In addition, the informant told Deputy Fox that Conner and Tilton had the coins with them at the hotel or motel room and that they were planning to leave the city sometime later that day to dispose of the stolen property. After speaking with the individual, Deputy Fox relayed the information obtained to Detective Polak. Acting on the tip received by Deputy Fox, Sioux City Police investigators were dispatched to check area motels for the red Fiero that Conner and Tilton were supposed to be driving. Because three handguns had been taken in the burglary, the investigators were warned that Conner and Tilton might be armed. Sioux City Police Detectives Monlux and Rohde located the red Fiero in front of Room 31 at the Elmdale Motel in Sioux City, Iowa. Detectives Monlux and Rohde radioed for the assistance of other officers, and waited in their police vehicle, which was parked at the rear of the motel. Sergeant Young, Detective Polak, and Detective Iddings responded to the call from Detectives Monlux and Rohde. Sioux City Police Officer Mark Hein also arrived at the motel. Officer Hein, who was the only police officer in uniform, parked his vehicle at the front of the motel in order to observe the front door of the motel room and the Fiero. The officers’ plan was to knock on the front door of the room and attempt to speak to the individuals inside about the information that Deputy Fox had received concerning the Uhlir burglary. Sergeant Young was in charge of the investigation at the motel. Sergeant Young incorrectly assumed that either Detective Monlux or Detective Rohde had cheeked with the motel office to ascertain who had rented Room 31. At the time the officers approached Room 31 they did not know that the room had been rented to Conner. Apparently the officers approached Room 31 solely because the red Fiero was parked directly in front of it. Sergeant Young and Officer Hein went to the front door of Room 31, and Detectives Iddings and Polak positioned themselves south of the picture window for Room 31. Detectives Monlux and Rohde took up positions behind the motel. From his vantage point, Detective Iddings noticed packages of coins on the windowsill between the room’s curtains and window. Detective Iddings motioned to the coins on the windowsill, but Sergeant Young did not notice Iddings’s gesture nor the coins on the windowsill. Detective Iddings did not tell other officers on the scene that he had seen the coins or take any other action to draw the coins to their attention. Although he was assisting the other officers at the motel, Iddings had not previously been involved in the investigation of the Uhlir burglary. As a result, until that morning, Iddings was unfamiliar with the property taken during the Uhlir burglary. Detective Polak informed him that morning that a coin collection had been taken in the burglary and that the car driven by suspects in the burglary had been located at the motel. Officer Hein knocked on the door of Room 31 and identified himself as a police officer. The officers received no response from the room. Officer Hein knocked again, and announced a second time that they were police officers. Detective Polak indicated to the other police officers that he had seen someone looking out of the picture window of Room 31. In response, Sergeant Young repositioned himself to the north of the door, and withdrew his pistol from its holster and held the pistol behind his back so that it wasn’t exposed to anyone’s view. Officer Hein again knocked and announced the presence of the officers. Sergeant Young shouted, “Open up,” in a voice loud enough to be heard two rooms away by Wendie Oestmann, another resident at the motel. The officers’ knocking on the door was loud enough to awaken Ms. Oestmann and to cause another female guest of the motel to step out of her room under the mistaken belief that the police were knocking at her door. A short time after Officer Hein knocked on the door for the third time, Tilton opened the door to the room. Tilton opened the door in response to Sergeant Young’s command that he open the door. When Tilton opened the door, Sergeant Young observed what appeared to be foreign currency at the foot of one bed, coins and envelopes the size of currency on the bed, as well as blue, gold, and maroon boxes matching the description given by Uhlir. Believing the currency and other materials he observed to be the proceeds of the Uhlir burglary, Sergeant Young drew his weapon on Tilton and ordered him to back away from the door. Tilton complied with Sergeant Young’s request and backed away from the doorway. Sergeant Young and Officer Hein then entered the motel room and secured Tilton by ordering him to the floor and handcuffing him. At that point, the officers observed other coins and coin packages scattered throughout the room as well as three large briefcases sitting in the corner of the motel room that appeared to be similar to those described by Uhlir. After Tilton was secured, the officers asked Tilton where Conner was, and Tilton told the officers that he was in the motel room’s bathroom. Fearing that Conner might be armed, the officers ordered Conner to come out of the bathroom. When Conner complied with the officers’ request and came out of the bathroom, the officers arrested him. Conner was taken to a patrol car outside the motel while Tilton was detained in the motel room. Tilton and Conner were advised of their constitutional rights as required under. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Tilton and Conner both gave statements to the officers. These statements were made voluntarily and after Tilton and Conner were informed of their rights. The motel room was secured by the officers while Detective Polak sought a search warrant. Detective Iddings stayed at the motel room while a search warrant was being sought. Sergeant Young instructed Detective Iddings to stay at the motel,- not to let anyone in the motel room, not to touch anything, and not to conduct a search of the room. Detective Iddings followed these directives and did not conduct a search of the room. The search warrant application signed by Detective Polak contained the following information: A. Facts of which I have personal knowledge without using an informant. 1. Facts: On 12-25-95 a burglary occurred at 4605 Meadow Lane in which the attached list of property was reported as stolen. On 1-2-96 information was received from the Woodbury County Sheriffs Office that Larry Conner and John Tilton were involved in this burglary and that they were staying at a local motel. They were operating a red 1986 Pontiac Fiero, License/WEH624. The vehicle was located on 1-2-96 parked at the Elmdale Motel parked in front of Room #31. It was verified that this room was rented to Larry Conner on 12-26-95. Officers knocked on the door and identified themselves and Mr. Tilton opened the door. At that time, in plain view were coin rolls and coin sets throughout the room. Government Exhibit #AA, Search Warrant Application, p. 3. A search warrant was secured and the room was subsequently searched. The officers seized a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber revolver, a Colt pistol, coins, three large briefcases, and other items believed to have been taken during the Uhlir burglary. Sergeant Young next obtained a search warrant for Conner’s residence in Sloan, Iowa. The application for the second search warrant, signed by Sergeant Young, contained the following information: A. Facts of which I have personal knowledge without using an informant. 1. Facts: On 12-25-95 a burglary occurred at 4605 Meadow Lane in which approximately $100,000 in coins were taken along with the vehicle and guns listed on page one of the Search Warrant. That, on 1-2-96 Detective Polak received information from Deputy Fox, Woodbury County Sheriffs Department, that an informant called him and indicated that the suspects in this burglary were staying in an unknown motel in Sioux City and were driving a red 1986 Pontiac Fiero, license/WEH624. That, the two suspects have the stolen property in their possession. Informant indicated to Deputy Fox that the suspects were Larry Conner and John Tilton. On 1-2-96 Detectives Monlux and Rohde located the suspect vehicle at the Elm-dale Motel, 22nd & Highway 75 North, Sioux City; and the vehicle was parked in front of Room # 31. That, the clerk of the Elmdale was contacted by detectives and registration information indicated that Larry Conner was renting Room # 31 and gave a home address of 2027 310th Street, Sloan, Iowa. That, this affiant is familiar with the criminal history of Larry Conner and John Til-ton. That, this affiant along with Officer Hein knocked on the door to Room # 31 and John Tilton looked out the window. Officers announced their presence and approximately 3 minutes later Tilton opened the door to the room. That, lying on top of the bed I observed coin boxes that resembled those described by the victim of the burglary. After entering the room, I observed several brief cases and numerous packages of coins which also fit the description given by the victim. After securing the room and making application for a search warrant for that room, information was again received from Deputy Fox that more stolen property could be located at 2027 310th Street, Sloan, Iowa. That, this is the residence of Donna and Larry Conner. Government Exhibit #BB, Search Warrant Application, p. 3. During the search of the Sloan residence, law enforcement officers seized items they believed had also been taken during the Uhlir burglary. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” and assures “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” The protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment provide individuals with a right of privacy which must not be arbitrarily invaded by either the federal government or the states. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949). Just days ago, the Supreme Court observed, We have long held that the “touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S.Ct. 1801, [1803] 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991). Reasonableness, in turn, is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances. Ohio v. Robinette, — U.S.-,-, 117 S.Ct. 417, 421, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (also “emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry”). Any evidence secured through an unreasonable, hence illegal, search and seizure may not be used in a federal prosecution, Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914), nor may the fruit of such tainted evidence be admitted against the defendant whose privacy rights were originally violated. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 415-18, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Because all of the evidence against the defendants for which suppression is sought is alleged to be the fruits of the officers’ unconstitutional initial entry, if the defendants prevail, all of the resulting evidence should be suppressed. See Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 484-88, 83 S.Ct. at 415-18; United States v. Duchi, 906 F.2d 1278, 1285 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Williams, 604 F.2d 1102 (8th Cir.1979). Because of the overlap in the issues raised in Conner’s and Tilton’s motions, the court will proceed by addressing each of the individual issues raised in the motions seriatim. These issues fall into three general categories: the standing of the defendants to assert constitutional violations from the entry into and search of the motel room; the constitutionality of the entry into the motel room and the arrest of the defendants; and the constitutionality of the subsequent searches and seizures. A. Standing Initially, the court must consider whether defendants Conner and Tilton have standing to object to the search of the motel room. A defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights cannot be violated by a search unless he or she has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); see United States v. Stallings, 28 F.3d 58, 60 (8th Cir.1994); United States v. Gomez, 16 F.3d 254, 256 (8th Cir.1994). It is clear that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be vicariously asserted. United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77, 81, 113 S.Ct. 1936, 1939, 123 L.Ed.2d 635 (1993) (noting “that a defendant can urge the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment only if that defendant demonstrates that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure.”); see also United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 731, 100 S.Ct. 2439, 2443-44, 65 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980); Rakas, 439 U.S. at 148-49, 99 S.Ct. at 432-33. While an ownership or possessory interest in the premises is not necessarily required, the mere legitimate presence on the searched premises by invitation or otherwise is not sufficient to create a protectable expectation of privacy. Rakas, 439 U.S. at 142-43, 99 S.Ct. at 429-30; United States v. Meyer, 656 F.2d 979, 981 (5th Cir.1981). In his motion, Conner contends that Room 31 of the Elmdale Motel was registered in his name- and he was residing there. Tilton asserts in his motion and moving papers that, while the room was in Conner’s name, he also was residing there. A party seeking to challenge a search of commercial premises bears the burden of establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy. See Rakas, 439 U.S. at 130 n. 1, 99 S.Ct. at 424 n. 1; Gomez, 16 F.3d at 256; United States v. Acosta, 965 F.2d 1248, 1256 n. 9 (3d Cir.1992). This burden entails establishing that the challenging party had a subjective expectation of privacy in the searched premises and that the expectation of privacy is one that society is willing to accept. See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2580, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979); Stallings, 28 F.3d at 60; United States v. Kiser, 948 F.2d 418, 423 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 983, 112 S.Ct. 1666, 118 L.Ed.2d 387 (1992); United States v. Monie, 907 F.2d 793, 794 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Chuang, 897 F.2d 646, 649 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 824, 111 S.Ct. 77, 112 L.Ed.2d 50 (1990). Therefore, the threshold issue here is whether each of the defendants possessed a subjective expectation of privacy in the motel room. Conner and Tilton each bear the burden of proving a legitimate expectation of privacy in the motel room. See Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104-05, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 2561-62, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Rakas, 439 U.S. at 131 n. 1, 99 S.Ct. at 424 n. 1; Stallings, 28 F.3d at 60; United States v. Macklin, 902 F.2d 1320, 1330 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1031, 111 S.Ct. 689, 112 L.Ed.2d 680 (1991); United States v. Fahnbulleh, 748 F.2d 473, 477 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1139, 105 S.Ct. 2685, 86 L.Ed.2d 702 (1985). Whether a party has an actual subjective expectation of privacy depends on several factors. Courts have looked to whether the defendant had a possessory interest in the things seized or place searched, whether he has the right to exclude others from that place, whether he has exhibited a subjective expectation that the place would remain free from governmental intrusion, whether he took normal precautions to maintain his privacy, and whether he was legitimately on the premises. See United States v. Nabors, 761 F.2d 465, 469 (8th Cir.) (finding that a casual guest did not have a legitimate privacy interest at a host’s home), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851, 106 S.Ct. 148, 88 L.Ed.2d 123 (1985); United States v. Haydel, 649 F.2d 1152, 1155 (5th Cir.) (finding that the defendant possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his parents’ home), corrected on reh’g on other grounds, 664 F.2d 84 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 1721, 72 L.Ed.2d 140 (1982); and compare Gomez, 16 F.3d at 256 (holding that a defendant did not have a sufficient expectation of privacy in the automobile he was driving). Here, the government does not challenge Conner’s and Tilton’s assertions that they were both residing at Room 31 nor that Room 31 was registered in Conner’s name. The evidence is uncontested that Tilton had occupancy rights in the Elmdale motel room assigned to Conner. The court concludes that both defendants had subjective expectations of privacy in the motel room, for a number of reasons, all recognized in the Nabors decision: (1) each had a possessory interest in the motel room; (2) each had the right to exclude others from that place; (3) each exhibited a subjective expectation that the place would remain free from governmental intrusion by refusing to open the door to police officers, even though the officers had identified themselves as the police, until the defendants were ordered to open the door; (4) the defendants had taken normal precautions to maintain their privacy, such as by keeping the door and curtains to the motel room closed; and (5) each was legitimately on the premises by virtue of having rented the motel room. See Nabors, 761 F.2d at 469. As to the willingness of society to accept the defendants’ expectation of privacy, the second prong of the expectation of privacy test, see, e.g., Smith, 442 U.S. at 740, 99 S.Ct. at 2580; Stallings, 28 F.3d at 60, it is now well-settled that a person does not forfeit Fourth Amendment protection merely because he or she is residing in a hotel room. See, e.g., Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 301, 87 S.Ct. 408, 413, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966) (holding that “[a] hotel room can be the object of Fourth Amendment protection as much as a home or an office.”); Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 490, 84 S.Ct. 889, 893-94, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964) (holding that the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures of homes extend to guest rooms in commercial establishments); United States v. Hardy, 52 F.3d 147, 149 (7th Cir.) (holding that a motel room occupied as a temporary residence receives the same constitutional protection as a home), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 207, 133 L.Ed.2d 140 (1995); United States v. Foxworth, 8 F.3d 540, 544 (7th Cir.1993) (“The Fourth Amendment protection also applies to warrantless intrusions into motel rooms when occupied as a temporary abode.”), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1025, 114 S.Ct. 1414, 128 L.Ed.2d 85 (1994); United States v. Richard, 994 F.2d 244, 247 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that the Fourth Amendment protections extend to guests staying in hotel rooms); United States v. Rosario, 962 F.2d 733, 736 (7th Cir.1992) (holding that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and unreasonable seizures protects “the legitimate privacy expectations of the occupant of a hotel or motel.”); United States v. Rivera, 825 F.2d 152, 156 (7th Cir.) (“A hotel room, as a temporary abode, is similarly protected from arbitrary searches and seizures.”), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 979, 108 S.Ct. 494, 98 L.Ed.2d 492 (1987); United States v. Diaz, 814 F.2d 454, 458 (7th Cir.) (holding that the Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure apply to individuals in hotel rooms as well as in homes), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 857, 108 S.Ct. 166, 98 L.Ed.2d 120 (1987); United States v. Baldacchino, 762 F.2d 170, 175-76 (1st Cir.1985) (concluding that a defendant who was a motel room guest “had the same right of privacy that one would have against an intrusion into one’s private dwelling.”); United States v. Newbern, 731 F.2d 744, 748 (11th Cir.1984) (holding that “a person does not forfeit fourth amendment protections merely because he is residing in a hotel room.”); United States v. Roper, 681 F.2d 1354, 1357 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding that the defendant’s use of a motel room for lodging “insures the same expectation of privacy as if it were his home.”), cert. denied sub nom. Newton v. United States, 459 U.S. 1207, 103 S.Ct. 1197, 75 L.Ed.2d 440 (1983); United States v. Bulman, 667 F.2d 1374, 1383 (11th Cir.) (indicating that “an individual does not forfeit his Fourth Amendment protections merely be cause he is residing in a hotel room.”), cert. denied sub nom. Howard v. United States, 456 U.S. 1010, 102 S.Ct. 2305, 73 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1982); United States v. Jackson, 588 F.2d 1046, 1052 (5th Cir.) (holding that while an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights “do not evaporate when he rents a motel room, the extent of the privacy he is entitled to reasonably expect may very well diminish.”), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941, 99 S.Ct. 2882, 61 L.Ed.2d 310 (1979); United States v. Killebrew, 560 F.2d 729, 733 (6th Cir.1977) (holding that “a guest in a hotel room is entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.”); cf. United States v. Ramos, 12 F.3d 1019, 1023 (11th Cir.1994) (holding that a defendant had the same privacy interest in a leased condominium that a person would have in a motel room). But cf. United States v. Irizarry, 673 F.2d 554, 556 (1st Cir.1982) (holding that the defendant had failed to generate a privacy interest in a hotel room were he offered no evidence of any personal interest in the hotel room beyond his being “merely present”). Because the defendants have satisfied both prongs of the expectation of privacy test, the court concludes that both Conner and Tilton possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in Room 31 of the Elmdale Motel. Thus, the court concludes that both Conner and Tilton had legitimate expectations of privacy in the motel room for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. , Consequently, both have standing to challenge the entry into and search of that motel room by law enforcement officers. Rakas, 439 U.S. at 128, 99 S.Ct. at 422-23 (a defendant has standing to assert a violation of his or her Fourth Amendment rights when the defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched); Stallings, 28 F.3d at 60; Gomez, 16 F.3d at 256. B. Entry And Arrest Because both defendants have standing to seek to suppress evidence seized from the motel room, the next questions before the court concern the propriety of the officer’s entry into the motel room and their arrest of the defendants. Much depends upon how law enforcement officers gained visual access to the interior of the motel room, because plainly once they gained such access, the likely fruits of crime were in plain view around the motel room, justifying seizure of such items and further search, as well as establishing probable cause for the defendants’ arrest. Cf. United States v. Winsor, 846 F.2d 1569, 1572 (9th Cir.1988) (en banc) (when a criminal defendant asserted violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, because officers knocked on his hotel room door, the court stated, “The threshold question we must decide is whether the police conducted a search within the purview of the Fourth Amendment when they looked into Winsor’s room through the open door while standing in the hotel corridor.”). The officers gained visual access to the motel room when Tilton opened the door in response to the officers’ knocking. The first fighting issue between the parties, therefore, is whether Tilton voluntarily opened the door to the motel room, that is, whether he consented to opening the door upon the request of law enforcement officers, or whether Tilton involuntarily opened the door, in response to a demand for entry under color of authority. 1. Did the door open by consent or upon a demand under color of authority? In United States v. Peters, 912 F.2d 208 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1094, 111 S.Ct. 981, 112 L.Ed.2d 1066 (1991), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with a claim that law enforcement officers violated a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights in knocking on his hotel room door and in looking into his hotel room through the door after he opened it. Peters, 912 F.2d at 210. When the law enforcement officers were able to look into the defendant’s hotel room, they saw contraband in plain view in the room. Id. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals observed, When an individual voluntarily opens the door of his or her place of residence in response to a simple knock, the individual is knowingly exposing to the public anything that can be seen through that open door and thus is not afforded fourth amendment protection. United States v. Wright, 641 F.2d 602, 604 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1021, 101 S.Ct. 3014, 69 L.Ed.2d 394 (1981); see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (“What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his or her own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.”). After Peters opened the door to the hotel room in which he was staying in response to the simple knock on the door by the police officers, a search did not occur when the detective looked into Peters’ room through the open doorway. Therefore, any contraband in “plain view,” here the crack cocaine and the drug paraphernalia, was properly seized by the officers under the plain view doctrine. See Horton v. California, [496] U.S. [128], [136-38] 110 S.Ct. 2301, 2308, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990); United States v. Gamer, 907 F.2d 60, 62 (8th Cir.l990)[, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1068, 111 S.Ct. 787, 112 L.Ed.2d 849 (1991) ]. Peters, 912 F.2d at 210. In a more recent, but very brief opinion, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed that opening a door in response to a “simple knock” is consensual and observing objects thus revealed inside in plain view does not violate any constitutional standard requiring suppression of evidence. See United States v. Deanda, 73 F.3d 825, 825-26 (8th Cir.1996). In Deanda, [t]he officers, acting on an anonymous tip, knocked on [the defendant’s] door and asked to come in. [The defendant] willingly let them in. The officers did not enter with a display of force or otherwise in a coercive manner. They .did not demand or obtain entry under authority of law. They simply knocked on the door and were let in. The evidence at issue was thereafter observed either in plain view or as a result of [the defendant’s] consent to search the entire house. Deanda, 73 F.3d at 826. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a defendant who opened the door in response to a simple knock by police officers could not complain of his warrantless arrest. United States v. Vaneaton, 49 F.3d 1423, 1425-27 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 116 S.Ct. 1271, 134 L.Ed.2d 218 (1996). The court found that the question posed in Vaneaton was not “whether [the defendant] was standing inside or outside the threshold of his [motel] room, but whether he ‘voluntarily exposed himself to warrantless arrest’ by freely opening the door of his motel room to the police.” Id. at 1426. The court concluded that if the defendant did so expose himself, the presumption of the unreasonableness of a warrantless seizure inside a home created by Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), would be overcome. Id. To put it another way, the court found implicit in its prior precedent “approval of a warrantless arrest of a suspect who voluntarily opens the door of his dwelling in response to a noncoercive knock by the police.” Id. The court thus distinguished prior precedent finding arrests unconstitutional where the door had opened in response to subterfuge to get the defendant to open the door. Id. (distinguishing United States v. Johnson, 626 F.2d 753 (9th Cir.1980), aff'd, 457 U.S. 537, 102 S.Ct. 2579, 73 L.Ed.2d 202 (1982)). The court found that in Vaneaton’s case the uniformed police used no force or threats, and unlike Johnson, they did not resort to a subterfuge or a ruse, or draw weapons. When Vaneaton saw them through the window, he voluntarily opened the door and exposed both himself and the immediate area to them. No threats or force were used by the police to get him to open the door, and his actions were not . taken in response to a claim of lawful authority. Vaneaton, 49 F.3d at 1427. Thus, the court found no invasion of a defendant’s dwelling place that Payton seeks to protect, declined to find the seizure in the case before it offended the Fourth Amendment, and affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress. Id.; accord United States v. Rosario, 962 F.2d 733, 738 (7th Cir.1992) (contrasting the opening of a door by consent with opening a door “in submission to authority,” and finding consent to entry where the occupant of a motel room opened the door in response to an officer’s knock, the officer who knocked at the door identified himself when the occupant opened the door, mentioned why police were at the motel, and requested permission to enter the room). The government asserts, without elaborating its argument, that this case presents only a constitutional “knock and talk” scenario, citing Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). Consequently, the government contends, no search or seizure occurred when officers looked into the motel room after Tilton opened the door, and no illegality taints the physical entry into the motel room and the arrest of the defendants. The court notes that Bostick is, at best, only remotely related to the issues in this ease, because it did not involve a “knock and talk” scenario. Instead, Bostick involved officers picking out an individual on a bus, admittedly without articulable suspicion, and asking to inspect his ticket and identification. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 431, 111 S.Ct. at 2384-85. The “sole issue presented for [the Court’s] review [was] whether a police encounter on a bus of the type described above necessarily constitutes a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” Id. at 433, 111 S.Ct. at 2386, although the court considered arguments that the approach of the officers constituted “an intimidating show of authority.” Id. at 438, 111 S.Ct. at 2388. Thus, Bostick is at most only marginally instructive. However, as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals seemed to suggest in Peters and Deanda, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals more explicitly stated in Vaneaton, the situation. is different when the .defendant does not voluntarily respond to a “simple knock on the door.” Deanda, 73 F.3d at 826; Peters, 912 F.2d at 210; see also Vaneaton, 49 F.3d at 1427 (suggesting factors that might have made the opening of the door nonconsensual and thus violative of the Fourth Amendment). Instead, courts have held that a defendant does not “voluntarily” open a door, and thus does not consent to public view of things beyond the door, when the defendant complies with a police demand that the occupant of the premises open the door, because such “ ‘[c]omplianee with a police “demand” is not consent.’ ” Winsor, 846 F.2d at 1573 n. 3 (en banc decision quoting the panel decision at 816 F.2d 1394, 1397 (9th Cir.1987)). In Winsor, the police decided to enter a hotel and to go from room to room looking for a robbery suspect. Id. at 1571. “When the police knocked on the door [of the defendants’ room] and demanded that it be opened,” one of the defendants obeyed, at which point, the police officers recognized the suspect as the robber and found evidence of the robbery in plain view. Id. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the defendant had opened the door in response to a claim of lawful authority, not voluntarily. Winsor, 846 F.2d at 1573. Consequently, the Winsor court held that “the police did effect a ‘search’ when they gained visual entry into the room through the door that was opened at their command.” Id. More recently, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has also distinguished between physical entry, not just visual entry, obtained by consent and entry obtained when a door is opened “in response to a ‘show of official authority.’ ” United States v. Tovar-Rico, 61 F.3d 1529, 1535-36 (11th Cir.1995). In Tovar-Rico, [t]he circumstances of the entry to [the defendant’s] apartment [were] summed up by the magistrate judge as follows: “Defendant was first confronted by police officers that day when at least five officers knocked loudly at her door, announced their identity as police officers through the closed door, and requested permission to enter. Defendant then opened the door and the officers entered quickly with guns drawn to do the protective sweep.” He concluded that under the circumstances, the defendant did not have any understanding of her right to refuse entry and demand a warrant. Tovar-Rico, 61 F.3d at 1535. After the police officers conducted their “protective sweep,” they asked the defendant for consent to another search, to which the defendant agreed by signing a consent form. Id. at 1535-36. The magistrate judge found the consent involuntary. He opined that Tovar had already observed officers explore every room in the apartment and could not reasonably have known that she could still refuse a search. We agree. We entertain no doubt that Tovar opened the door in response to a “show of official authority” and cannot be deemed to have consented to the agents’ entry or to have voluntarily consented to the search. Cf. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 549, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1792, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968); United States v. Edmondson, 791 F.2d 1512, 1515 (11th Cir.1986). “[W]here the validity of a search rests on consent, the State has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given, a burden that is not satisfied by showing a mere submission to a claim of lawful authority.” Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). After a careful review of the uneontradicted facts established in the record, we conclude that the condition which existed at the time made the entry illegal and support the district court’s finding that the consent to search was not voluntary. Tovar-Rico, 61 F.3d at 1536 (emphasis added). The appellate court therefore affirmed the district court’s suppression of evidence gained as the result of the nonconsensual opening of the door into the defendant’s home. Id. at 1537. The Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals are not alone in holding that where a door is opened in response to coercion or a demand under color of authority, the subsequent view of, entry into, or search of the interior thus revealed is not the result of consent or voluntary action by the defendant. See United States v. Edmondson, 791 F.2d 1512, 1514-15 (11th Cir.1986) (the defendant’s opening of a door following a command of “FBI. Open the door.” was deemed not to constitute a voluntary consent to entry; therefore the arrest of the defendant was illegal and the evidence seized at the time of the arrest was unlawfully seized); United States v. Newbern, 731 F.2d 744, 748 (11th Cir.1984) (where the police knocked on the defendant’s hotel- door and the defendant pulled back the curtain of his window to see who was knocking and saw the officers with their badges out and their guns drawn, the court found that “[t]he fact that [defendant] then told the officers to come in, under such circumstances, cannot be termed entry based on consent”; absent consent or exigent circumstances, the entry into the hotel room was an unconstitutional intrusion, and all evidence obtained from the room was suppressed as the product of an illegal arrest); United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir.1985) (concluding that a defendant did not voluntarily open the door of his residence where the police, with weapons drawn, surrounded the residence and ordered him through a bullhorn to come outside; however, because the arrest was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances, no evidence was suppressed), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1144, 106 S.Ct. 2255, 90 L.Ed.2d 700 (1986); see also Fontenot v. Cormier, 56 F.3d 669, 675 (5th Cir.1995) (in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court found that the plaintiff did not implicitly consent to entry by police officers where the plaintiff was abruptly awakened in the middle of the night by bright lights shining through her bedroom window, -was confronted by uniformed and armed officers who did not knock or ask if they could enter her residence, but instead ordered the plaintiff to open the door; the court concluded that the officers were not free to enter the residence absent consent, and the appellate court reversed the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of the officers on the plaintiffs § 1988 claim). But cf. United States v. Tobin, 923 F.2d 1506, 1512 (11th Cir.1991) (en banc) (when an agent knocked on defendant’s door for several minutes as he shouted in English and in Spanish, “I’m a police officer, I would like to talk to you, I need for you to come here,” the court concluded that the agent’s words were “in the form of a request,” and thus the defendant’s decision to open the door was voluntary), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 907, 112 S.Ct. 299, 116 L.Ed.2d 243 (1991). Even the en bane decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Tobin, which both preceded the panel decision in TovarRico, and must be contrasted with TovarRico, because the court ultimately found that the defendant in the case before it in Tobin opened the door voluntarily, nonetheless supports the same rule of law. In Tobin, the court also recognized the difference between “eases in which police have used their position to demand entry” and cases in which the defendant voluntarily opened the door in response to a request that he or she do so, citing the same authority relied on by the later panel in Tovar-Rico. Tobin, 923 F.2d at 1512 (citing Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1791-92, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968), and Edmondson, 791 F.2d at 1514, as examples of the first kind of case, and United States v. Willis, 759 F.2d 1486, 1493 & 1498 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 849, 106 S.Ct. 144, 88 L.Ed.2d 119 (1985), as an example of the second). In the first kind of case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals en banc recognized that, because the door was opened in response to a demand, the courts “ha[d] held that consent was not voluntary and thus ha[d] required suppression of evidence discovered pursuant to entry.” Id. The court concludes from these authorities that an unconstitutional “search” occurs, when officers gain visual or physical access to a motel room, even if objects in the interior of a motel room are in plain view when the door is opened, when the door is not opened voluntarily, but is instead opened in response to a demand under color- of authority. See, e.g., Tovar-Rico, 61 F.3d at 1537 (holding that an unconstitutional entry occurred, because a door was opened in response to a show of authority, when at least five officers knocked loudly at the defendant’s door, announced their identity as police officers through the closed door, and requested permission to enter); Winsor, 846 F.2d at 1573 (specifically holding that visual entry into a room through a door that was opened at the command of police officers constituted a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment). Furthermore, any evidence gained as the result of such involuntary access should be suppressed, unless some other constitutionally permissible ground for the access is presented. See Tovar-Rico, 61 F.3d at 1537 (affirming suppression of evidénce obtained by nonconsensual opening of a door and entry into a home); Winsor, 846 F.2d at 1573 (having determined that visual access was a “search,” because the access was not gained by consent, the court considered whether probable cause for the search otherwise existed); see also Tobin, 923 F.2d at 1512 (recognizing that courts had suppressed evidence where access was gained without the defendant’s consent or voluntary action); Edmondson, 791 F.2d at 1514-15 (evidence seized at the time of the arrest following entry obtained without consent or exigent circumstances was unlawfully seized); Newbern, 731 F.2d at 748 (where the entry into a hotel room was obtained without consent, the entry was an unconstitutional intrusion, and all evidence obtained from the room was suppressed as the product of an illegal arrest); and compare Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d at 893 (9th Cir.1985) (although the defendant did not voluntarily open the door of his residence the arrest was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances; therefore, no evidence was suppressed). Thus, the constitutionality of the officers’ visual and physical access to the interior of the motel room in this case depends upon the voluntariness of Tilton’s opening of the motel room door.' The Supreme Court has said, When a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given. This burden cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1792, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968). The Supreme Court put the matter very succinctly when it added, “Where there is coercion there cannot be consent.” Id. at 550, 88 S.Ct. at 1792. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained further the effect of consent, and articulated the test for how the court is to determine whether consent was given: A search based upon an individual’s consent may be undertaken by law enforcement agents without a warrant or probable cause, and any evidence discovered during the search may be seized and admitted at trial. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2043-44, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) (Schneckloth). To justify a consensual search, the prosecution has the burden of proving that an individual voluntarily consented to the search. United States v. Severe, 29 F.3d 444, 446 (8th Cir.1994) (Severe) (citing United States v. Larson, 978 F.2d 1021, 1023 (8th Cir.l992))[, cert. denied, — U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 763, 130 L.Ed.2d 660 (1995) ]. The prosecution need not prove that the individual was fully aware of his or her rights under the Fourth Amendment in order to establish a voluntary consent. Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 235, 93 S.Ct. at 2051-52. The totality of the circumstances must be considered by the court to determine whether consent was given voluntarily and without coercion. Severe, 29 F.3d at 446; United States v. Barahona, 990 F.2d 412, 417 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227, 93 S.Ct. at 2048). Consent may be inferred through words, actions or conduct of the individual subject to the search. United States v. Gleason, 25 F.3d 605, 607 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 283, 130 L.Ed.2d 199 (1994). The question of whether consent to search is present is an issue of fact that requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Severe, 29 F.3d at 446 (citing United States v. Cortez, 935 F.2d 135, 142 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1062, 112 S.Ct. 945, 117 L.Ed.2d 114 (1992)); see Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227, 93 S.Ct. at 2048. A district court’s finding of consent to search is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. United States v. Heath, 58 F.3d 1271, 1275-76 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 240, 133 L.Ed.2d 167 (1995). Very recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this test of consent: In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), it was argued that ... consent [to a search] could not be valid unless the defendant knew that he had a right to refuse the request. We rejected this argument: “While knowledge of the right to refuse consent is one factor to be taken into account, the government need not establish such knowledge as the sine qua non of an effective consent.” Id., at 227 [93 S.Ct. at 2048]. And just as it “would be thoroughly impractical to impose on the normal consent search the detailed requirements of an effective warning,” id. at 231 [93 S.Ct. at 2050], so too would it be unrealistic to require police officers to always inform detainees that they are free to go before a consent to search may be deemed voluntary. The Fourth Amendment test for a valid consent to search is that the consent be voluntary, and “[vjoluntariness is a question of fact to be dMermined from all the circumstances, ” id., at 248-249 [93 S.Ct. at 2059]. Robinette, — U.S. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 421 (emphasis added). The court concludes, from the totality of the circumstances, that Tilton involuntarily opened the door to the motel room pursuant to a command of entry under color of authority; thus, Tilton did not consent to the officers’ view of anything revealed beyond the door or to entry of the officers into the motel room to make a search or to effect the arrest of the defendants. Compare Peters, 912 F.2d at 210 (a defendant who opens a door voluntarily “knowingly expos[es] to the public anything that can be seen through that open door and thus is not afforded fourth amendment protection.”). The circumstances here do not present the “simple knock on the door” of a motel room that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Peters and Deanda violates no constitutional standards. Id. Instead, the circumstances here “show[ ] no. more than acqtueseence to a claim of lawful authority.” Bumper, 391 U.S. at 548-49, 88 S.Ct. at 1792. Although this court agrees with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that police officers “knocking on a door to attempt to contact a person inside is a common event and hardly a hallmark of a policy state,” Vaneaton, 49 F.3d at 1427, the law enforcement officers here did more than simply knock on the door to Room 31. The officers knocked on the motel room door in a manner loud and persistent enough to awaken other motel patrons and to alert them to the officers’ presence, and the officers announced their identity as police officers through the closed door and at first requested, then demanded, that the door be opened. Cf. To-var-Rico, 61 F.3d at 1535 (entry was gained without consent where officers knocked loudly at the defendant’s door, announced their identity as police officers through the closed door, and requested permission to enter). When Tilton pulled back the curtain of his window to see who was' knocking, he saw several officers, albeit only one in uniform. Cf. Newbem, 731 F.2d at 748 (the defendant pulled back the curtains in response to knocking by the police and saw officers with their badges out and their guns drawn; the court held that the defendant subsequently opened the door involuntarily). When Tilton did not respond to the initial overtures of the officers, the officers continued to knock. Eventually, Sergeant Young commanded Til-ton to “open up” the motel room’s door. Only then did Tilton open the door. Cf. Edmondson, 791 F.2d at 1514-15 (the defendant opened the door involuntarily when he did so in response to the command, “FBI. Open the door.”). Under such circumstances, Tilton’s decision to open the motel room door cannot be construed to be a voluntary one. See Tovar-Rico, 61 F.3d at 1537 (an unconstitutional entry and search occurred, because the defendant opened the door in response to a show of authority, where officers knocked loudly at the defendant’s door, announced their identity as police officers through the closed door, and requested permission to enter); Winsor, 846 F.2d at 1573 (consent was involuntary as matter of law, and officers effected a noneonsensual search of the room, when they knocked on the door of hotel room and commanded that it be opened under a claim of lawful authority). Only involuntariness,' not consent, may be inferred from the words, actions, and conduct of the individuals subjected to the search in this case. Heath, 58 F.3d at 1275-76 (inferences of consent arise from words, actions, and conduct). Because Tilton opened the door in response to a show of official authority, and his opening of the door was thus nonconsensual, the officers’ visual search of and entry into the motel room was illegal, and the evidence later obtained must be suppressed, see To-var-Rico, 61 F.3d at 1537 (evidence obtained as the result of a nonconsensual entry into a dwelling had to be suppressed); Winsor, 846 F.2d at 1573 (finding evidence gained through a nonconsensual entry into a dwelling would have to be suppressed unless the entry was otherwise constitutionally sanitized); Edmondson, 791 F.2d at 1514-15 (suppressing evidence seized at the time of the arrest following entry obtained without consent or exigent circumstances); Newbern, 731 F.2d at 748 (suppressing evidence obtained from a nonconsensual entry into a hotel room); see also Tobin, 923 F.2d at 1512 (courts have held that evidence obtained when a defendant does not consensually open the door to the premises the defendant occupies, but involuntarily opens the door in response to commands to do so, must be suppressed), unless some other factor sanitizes the search. 2. Probable cause The government suggests that other factors do indeed sanitize the searches challenged by the present motions to suppress. The government suggests that the police had probable cause to arrest Tilton and Conner when Detective Iddings spotted the coins on the windowsill to Room 31 and that exigent circumstances justified entering the motel room to effect the defendants’ arrests without waiting for a warrant. Therefore, the questions the court must next address are whether the police had probable cause to arrest Conner and Tilton when Detective Iddings saw the coins on the windowsill, and if so, whether the failure of the police officers to obtain an arrest