District court's conviction of defendants for drug related crimes, after they were captured on audio/video participating in drug transactions in a motel room with an undercover agent, is affirmed where: 1) any error in admitting the recording at sentencing was harmless, and as such, question of whether the defendants had a reasonably expectation of privacy in the motel room need not be addressed; and 2) district court's rejection of a defendant's challenge to the admission of the audio recording at trial is affirmed as defendant's brief engagement with the motel room did not justify a reasonably expectation of privacy in the room, and thus his communications were not protected by Title III.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decided January 29, 2010
Opinion by Circuit Judge Lipez
For Appellee: Mark T. Quinlivan, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Michael K. Loucks, Acting United States Attorney,