Court Opinion

ID: 9663229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:32:31.023961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:46.867955
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, J.
(dissenting). Defendant appeals his July 20, 1977, jury convictions of four counts of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797. On September 6, 1977, defendant was sentenced to four concurrent prison terms of 13 to 20 years. On *19May 6, 1981, this Court remanded this cause for resentencing. Defendant was resentenced on June 18, 1981, to 4 concurrent prison terms of 6-1/2 to 12 years imprisonment.
The dispositive issue in this appeal concerns whether the defendant was denied a fair trial when certain items seized by the police during a warrantless search of trash bags in his backyard were admitted into evidence.
The question of whether a warrantless search of trash bags violates either the United States or the Michigan Constitutions turns upon the fundamental privacy interests of the individual who is the subject of the search. Katz v United States, 389 US 347; 88 S Ct 507; 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967). The test is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property. As was noted by the Michigan Supreme Court in People v Whalen, 390 Mich 672, 677; 213 NW2d 116 (1973):
"From Katz * * * there has evolved a test, applied by the courts, to determine whether or not a search, by Fourth Amendment standards, has indeed taken place. Simply put, if an individual has a reasoanble expectation of privacy in the area searched, or the materials seized, a search has been conducted. 'What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of a Fourth Amendment protection.’ Katz, supra, 351.”
There is no Michigan precedent on the precise issue presented in this case. Other jurisdictions that have considered this issue have not been unanimous in their conclusions. The majority of state courts have held that property in trash containers is abandoned and not protected by the Fourth Amendment. People v Huddleston, 38 Ill App 3d 277; 347 NE2d 76 (1976), Smith v State, *20510 P2d 793 (Alas, 1973), Croker v State, 477 P2d 122 (Wy, 1970). Similarly, the federal circuit courts of appeals that have considered this issue have held that rubbish placed on a curb for disposal is abandoned property that may be the subject of a warrantless search. United States v Mustone, 469 F2d 970 (CA 1, 1972), United States v Crowell, 586 F2d 1020 (CA 4, 1978), United States v Vahalik, 606 F2d 99 (CA 5, 1979), Magda v Benson, 536 F2d 111 (CA 6, 1972), United States v Shelby, 573 F2d 971 (CA 7, 1978).
On the other hand, a minority of state courts have held that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in trash placed in containers for disposal under certain circumstances. People v Krivda, 5 Cal 3d 357; 96 Cal Rptr 62; 486 P2d 1262 (1971), rev’d on other grounds 409 US 33; 93 S Ct 32; 34 L Ed 2d 45 (1972), People v Wert, 550 SW2d 1 (Tenn Cr App, 1977), Ball v State, 57 Wis 2d 653; 205 NW2d 353 (1973).
Upon consideration of these cases I find that the analysis of this issue employed by the Alaska Supreme Court sets forth the pertinent factors to be considered in arriving at a decision as to whether the search in this case was legal. In Smith v State, supra, 797-798, the Alaska court stated:
"To be sure, the question is very close. A review of several recent garbage can search cases reveals a basic core of factors to be considered in determining whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Those factors are:
"1. Where the trash is located,
"2. Whether the dwelling is multiple or single unit,
"3. Who removed the trash,
"4. Where the search of the trash takes place.
"One may readily arrange these factors to form a *21continuum. At one end of the continuum is trash located close to a single-family dwelling, on the same property as the dwelling, and searched by police officers at that location. We observe, without so deciding, that this would be a strong case for holding the expectation of privacy to be reasonable. At the other end of the continuum is trash located off the premises of a multiple-unit dwelling, and searched by a person authorized to remove it. In such a case we would be unable to hold that the expectation of privacy was unreasonable.”
Applying this test to the present case, the four factors identified by the Alaska Supreme Court would weigh toward a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case, the trash was located in the backyard of a two-family dwelling. Unlike the majority opinion, I would find that a two-family housing unit is more similar to a single-family dwelling than to a larger apartment complex. I would also find that where, as in this case, there is no evidence of a shared backyard, a reasonable expectation of privacy does exist in trash bags placed in it. The trash bag was not removed from the premises but was searched in defendant’s backyard by persons who were not authorized by defendant to handle it. The trash bags were not in a location open to the public or at a place where they were customarily left for pickup. I would hold then that defendant did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash bags that were the subject of the police search. Therefore, a search warrant should have been obtained prior to the search. This is particularly true in this case with respect to the second search that was conducted.
I am not able to accept the prosecutor’s argument that the search in this case was proper under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. The plain view exception permits police officers to seize evidence that is observed *22from a place where the officers have a lawful right to be and there is probable cause to believe that the evidence is related to the crime. Evidence that is seized under the authority of the plain view exception must have been inadvertently discovered. People v Heard, 65 Mich App 494; 237 NW2d 525 (1975).
It is evident from the record before us that the plain view exception does not apply in this case. First, the evidence was not in the police officer’s plain view, that is, he was required to open trash bags in order to discover it. Second, I cannot hold that the discovery was inadvertent. The police officer did not stumble upon this evidence during the course of his investigation; rather, he found it after sifting through refuse and debris while examining trash bags in defendant’s backyard.
I dissent and would reverse defendant’s convictions of armed robbery.