court clearly and unequivocally erred in coming to the findings of fact that it did and suppressing the evidence. The facts support the district court’s determination that the search occurred beyond Fisher’s area of “immediate control” under Chimel. There is no evidence that the shotgun posed an immediate threat to others with access to the apartment. By arresting and handcuffing Fisher, police had secured the only person with access to the weapon. No other persons were found in the apartment. The officer could have secured the apartment while obtaining a search warrant. Given that Fisher was subdued, handcuffed, guarded, and outside the room, no exigent circumstances existed justifying the warrant-less search. Cf. United States v. McKinney, 477 F.2d 1184, 1185-86 (D.C.Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hendrickson, 584 N.W.2d 774, 777-78
holding that a hotel occupant who was asked to leave by police officers acting on behalf of hotel management who complained of defendants disorderly behavior was justifiably ejected under state law and no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room holding officer who was shot by employee of a hotel while he was attempting to make an arrest was unable to recover for injuries from hotel owner holding that a 7 excise tax based on the charge to the public for a hotel room applied to the price expedia demands from the consumer for the right to occupy the hotel room and not the price expedia agrees to pay the hotel for the room holding warrantless entry of hotel room to remove sawedoff shotgun seen by hotel staff was justified by exigent circumstances including fact that shotgun was an ominous threat in itself holding that a hotel security guard was not liable under  1983 merely because he called police and brought the police to the plaintiffs hotel room