Case Title: State v. Morris

Citation: 165 Vt 111, 680 A.2d 90

Docket Number: 94-299

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Morris  (94-299); 165 Vt 111; 680 A.2d 90

[Opinion Filed 22-Mar-1996]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 94-299

State of Vermont                              Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
    v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

Richard Morris                                May Term, 1995


Paul F. Hudson, J.

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Karen R. Carroll, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender,
  Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       JOHNSON, J.   Today, we hold that the Vermont Constitution protects
  persons from warrantless police searches into the contents of secured
  opaque trash bags left at curbside for garbage collection and disposal.  In
  our view, because persons have an objectively reasonable privacy interest
  in the contents of such containers, police must obtain a warrant before
  searching through them.  In this case, absent the evidence obtained from
  the unlawful search of defendant's trash, the warrant permitting the search
  of his house was not supported by probable cause; accordingly, we reverse
  defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana.

                                   I.

       Sometime before March 1993, a confidential informant told an officer
  of the Brattleboro Police Department that defendant was selling marijuana
  from his apartment and from the parking lot of a certain grocery store.  On
  March 1, 1993, a regularly scheduled trash collection day, two police
  officers went to the apartment building where defendant resided and seized
  the five or six opaque trash bags that had been set out for collection near
  the curb about five or six feet from

 

  the building.  From the exterior of the bags, there was no way to identify
  which tenant had deposited which bags.  All of the bags were transported to
  the police station and searched without a warrant.  Inside defendant's
  bags, which were identified through discarded pieces of mail, the police
  found marijuana seeds and stems and baggies containing flakes of marijuana.

       Based on the items found in the trash, the information supplied by the
  confidential informant, and an unidentified neighbor's report that
  defendant had received many different visitors during the past month, the
  police sought and obtained a warrant to search defendant's residence. 
  Approximately four ounces of marijuana were found, and defendant was
  charged with possession of marijuana.  Defendant moved to suppress all
  evidence seized from his apartment on the ground that the search warrant
  was defective because it was based primarily on evidence discovered during
  an illegal warrantless search of his garbage.  The district court denied
  defendant's motion to suppress, ruling that defendant had no expectation of
  privacy in his discarded garbage.

       On appeal, following his conviction based upon a conditional plea of
  no contest, defendant argues that the Vermont Constitution prohibits the
  warrantless search of opaque trash bags placed at curbside for collection
  on a regularly scheduled trash pick-up day.  In response, the State
  contends that the Vermont Constitution does not prohibit the warrantless
  search of curbside trash, and that even if it did and evidence found in
  defendant's trash bags was suppressed, the other information in the warrant
  application and affidavit is sufficient to support a finding of probable
  cause to search defendant's apartment.

                                  II.

       Our task is to discover and protect the core value of privacy embraced
  by Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution.(FN1)  State v. Savva,
  159 Vt. 75, 85, 616 A.2d 774, 779

 

  (1991); State v. Kirchoff, 156 Vt. 1, 6-7, 587 A.2d 988, 992 (1991). 
  Article 11 protects persons "from unreasonable, warrantless governmental
  intrusions into affairs which they choose to keep private."  State v.
  Zaccaro, 154 Vt. 83, 91, 574 A.2d 1256, 1261 (1990).  The first and
  foremost line of protection is the warrant requirement.  Requiring advance
  judicial approval before subjecting persons to police searches represents a
  balance in which an individual's privacy interest outweighs the burdens on
  law enforcement in obtaining a warrant.  Savva, 159 Vt. at 85-86, 616 A.2d 
  at 780.  Thus, absent exceptional circumstances, the government's decision
  to invade a person's privacy must be made by a neutral judicial officer
  rather than the police.  Id. at 85, 616 A.2d  at 779.

       Of course, Article 11 does not "protect areas or activities that have
  been willingly exposed to the public."  Kirchoff, 156 Vt. at 7, 587 A.2d  at
  993.  In determining whether persons have a privacy interest in any given
  area or activity, we examine both private subjective expectations and
  general social norms.  State v. Blow, 157 Vt. 513, 517-18, 602 A.2d 552,
  555 (1991).  The manifested privacy interest must be a reasonable one, but
  as we have cautioned before, constitutional rights are not limited by
  waning expectations of privacy resulting from increased governmental
  intrusion into people's lives.  See Kirchoff, 156 Vt. at 12, 587 A.2d  at
  995-96. Ultimately, the question is "`whether, if the particular form of
  surveillance practiced by the police is permitted to go unregulated by
  constitutional constraints, the amount of privacy and freedom remaining to
  citizens would be diminished to a compass inconsistent with the aims of a
  free and open society.'"  1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 2.6(c), at 592
  (3d ed. 1996) (quoting A. Amsterdam, Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment,
  58 Minn. L. Rev. 349, 403 (1974)).

       Given the facts of this case, we believe that defendant manifested a
  privacy interest

 

  recognized by society, and we conclude that unconstrained government
  inspection of people's trash is not consistent with a free and open
  society.  As Justice Brennan stated in his dissent in California v.
  Greenwood,