896 F.2d at 597 (police improperly manufactured exigency when they knocked on door and shouted “police, police, open up”). Nor did he obtain a passkey to the room. Neill tried to enter room 900 only after he heard what he suspected was evidence flushing away. The district court’s decision to credit Neill’s testimony was well within its discretion as fact-finder. The district court also concluded properly that the police officers’ failure to obtain a warrant for room 900 prior to leaving the station did not disqualify them from entering the room once exigent circumstances arose. We recognize, as did the district court, that the police officers had probable cause to search room 900 immediately after Haynie called Simpson at the station. See Halliman, Crim. No. 89-00003-TFH, mem. op. at 9 (<HOLDING>). We also recognize that the police reasonably
holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will holding that even if information in an affidavit was provided in reckless disregard of the truth appropriate course of action is to sever that information from the affidavit and determine whether sufficient information remained in order for the magistrate to find probable cause holding that probable cause existed on grounds that the information in the affidavit supporting the warrants for rooms 903 918 and 806 would also have justified a warrant for room 900 and that the police had fresh information from haynie that the suspects were using the room holding that a magistrate had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where the supporting affidavit elaborated on the crime in detail holding on to objects in the room