Court Opinion

ID: 9558074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:02:32.566643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:13.466302
License: Public Domain

ROSE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Additional facts need emphasizing in this case — for the comedy relief if nothing else. It is the contention of the sheriff deputies that they did not know where the appellant’s cabin was and that they stumbled upon it quite by accident while looking for the trailer of a man by the name of Portschy — this to support a Fourth Amendment inadvertent-discovery contention. The fact is that on the day they entered the cabin, they were — and for some time had been — in possession of a map which told them exactly where the appellant’s cabin was located, and not only that, the structure had been described to them as being the only cabin in the area with an adobe roof. This was, in fact, an accurate description. The map and the description of the cabin had previously been given to them by Jessee himself. It is not easy for me to see how — with a straight face — the State of Wyoming can contend that the officers were really looking for Mr. Portschy’s trailer and, in the process, inadvertently came upon the Jessee cabin.
I love it where it is suggested that the deputies were on the appellant’s premises in response to their piqued curiosity which was *68triggered because the cabin was located on an historical site. The majority find it reasonable to believe that it was this curiosity that caused the officers to “nose around” in this area of historical proportions — and, thus, when they came upon the appellant’s cabin, they were really not embarked upon an investigation of Jessee for the Portschy robbery — but instead were into some sort of historical inquiry.
The scenario becomes even more lighthearted, if possible, when we come to the question of whether or not the officers thought the cabin was abandoned. Photographic exhibits show a big “No Trespassing” sign hanging over the front door. Some of the plastic was off of the window and so the officers looked inside. There they saw these kinds of things which (if you are ready for this) suggested to them that the cabin was abandoned:
a bunch of kitchen utensils, pots and pans;
a cabinet in which there was a large amount of dry or concentrated food;
a camp stove;
a red teflon skillet;
a black skillet.
Having seen these things, one deputy testified that he really did not know if anyone was living there.
The officers then entered to “Check the inside of the cabin to make sure no one was there,” and there they observed such items as the following which, the reader is supposed to infer, made it all the more likely that the officers believed the cabin to be abandoned:
a bed with a bunch of clothes on it;
a family Bible;
fishing equipment;
food;
coffee pot;
utensils that had recently been used.
Having came upon these additional indicators of abandonment, one of the officers testified that he still had doubts whether anyone was living there even though he went on to say that he recognized a Bible which he found on the table as being the property of the appellant who had — on a prior occasion — told him that this was where he lived.
Given these little peeks at the lighter side of the judicial process — and for other reasons that will become apparent — I find the majority opinion to be erroneous in its application of the facts to the law. I would hold that the initial search of the cabin prejudicially violated appellant’s constitutional rights and he should have been granted a new trial.
Was There a Legitimate Expectation of Privacy?
A review of the present state of the law surrounding a claimed Fourth Amendment violation is necessary because, in my judgment, the majority opinion fails to correctly analyze the prevailing constitutional concepts.
The most recent discussions of constitutional search and seizure law emanating from both the United States Supreme Court and this court emphasize that the underlying question which must be answered is whether the individual challenging the search had a justifiable expectation of privacy in the area searched. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Parkhurst v. State, Wyo., 628 P.2d 1369 (1981). We said in Parkhurst that in order to claim a violation of rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and Art. 1, § 4, of the Wyoming Constitution,1 the challenging party must be able to show a legitimate expectation of privacy. 628 P.2d at 1374. Therefore, the protections afforded by the exclusionary rule only apply to “unreasonable searches” under the Fourth Amendment or Art. 1, § 4, which searches must be shown to have taken place in an area where a legitimate expectation of privacy has attached.2
*69In order for this appellant to contend successfully that the cabin was illegally searched, he must initially demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in those premises. I read the majority opinion to assume that Jessee at least had an expectation of privacy in the interior of the cabin for the reason that the opinion sanctioned the search on plain-view and exigent-circumstance grounds. If this were not the position of the majority there would be no purpose in discussing plain view and exigent circumstances. This would, of course, be true because these concepts speak to the exception to the exclusionary strictures of search and seizure in those circumstances where it can be shown that the defendant has an expectation of privacy in the premises. I would suggest, however, that, in light of the trial judge’s conclusion that no expectation of privacy existed in the appellant’s cabin, it is necessary to decide the question.
In determining whether the appellant had an expectation of privacy in the cabin, I refer to the guidelines we adopted in Park-hurst. There we said that some of the factors to be considered in determining a person’s expectation of privacy include: (1) the precautions taken in order to maintain one’s privacy; (2) the likely intent of the drafters of the United States and Wyoming Constitutions; (8) the property rights the claimant possessed in the invaded area; (4) the legitimacy of the individual’s possession of or presence in the property which was searched or seized. 628 P.2d at 1374, citing from Comment, 15 Land & Water L.Rev. at 283, fn. 56, and at 295.3 Applying these guidelines, the record tells us that appellant used the cabin as his partial residence. He had protected the windows with plastic covering and there was a “No Trespassing” sign on the only door to the cabin. The defendant had permission from the owner of the cabin to reside there and it can therefore be said that he was lawfully in possession. Finally, as noted by the majority, it has never been questioned that the framers of both the United States and Wyoming Constitutions intended to guarantee the sanctity and privacy of an individual home. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Steagald v. United States, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981). Also, the United States Supreme Court decision in Rakas v. Illinois notes that, by virtue of his right to exclude others an individual will, in all likelihood, have a legitimate expectation of privacy in property he owns or lawfully possesses. Rakas v. Illinois, supra, 439 U.S. at 143, n. 12, 99 S.Ct. at 430, n. 12.
With these rules in mind, I would, without hesitation, conclude that the appellant had a justifiable expectation of privacy in the cabin. We held in Parkhurst that, under Art. 1, § 4, of the Wyoming Constitution an individual’s legitimate presence on the seized property in and of itself established a legitimate expectation of privacy, 628 P.2d at 1374, n. 7. Indeed, in this case the appellant had established his right to use the cabin as well as his right to exclude others from its interior. Even though the trial judge found to the contrary, I conclude that the appearance of abandonment cannot be the pivotal issue upon which a decision here can be rendered. The record shows that it was in fact not abandoned and that the appellant had established the cabin as his residence. I am, therefore, in agreement with what must be the majority’s assumption that appellant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the cabin, and the protections of the Fourth Amendment and Art. 1, § 4, are therefore applicable.
I would make clear, however, that it is my belief that appellant’s expectation of privacy is limited to the cabin’s interior. This conclusion finds its genesis in the fact that the cabin itself was located on public domain, in an area of historical significance. Thus, although appellant could exclude others from the cabin’s interior, he was not possessed of a right to exclude members of the general public or the police from the *70surrounding areas. I find support for this judgment in a factually similar case from the State of Hawaii. In State v. Dias, 62 Haw. 52, 609 P.2d 637 (1980), the Supreme Court of Hawaii decided that the appellant had a justifiable expectation of privacy in the interior of a home that was illegally located on state property, because the state had acquiesced in the possession of the property by squatters, 609 P.2d at 640. The court held that the fact of possession did not alter the public nature of the surrounding areas and therefore the appellant’s expectation of privacy did not extend to the exterior of the building, but this did not preclude an expectation of privacy in the interior. Jessee’s claim to his expectation of privacy in the cabin’s interior seems even stronger, since the cabin is located on BLM land with government permission. By analogy we can conclude that although appellant had a protectable interest in the cabin he could not lay claim to a legitimate expectation of privacy to the adjacent land and, as compared to the facts in the Hawaii case, Jessee’s expectation of privacy in the cabin’s interior was greater than that of the Hawaiian appellant because here the cabin was located on BLM land with the Bureau’s permission.
Was the Warrantless Search Justifiable Under Plain View?
As noted previously, the majority opinion upholds the search of the cabin by reason of the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement. The leading case discussing this exception is Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), which the majority note we followed in McCutcheon v. State, Wyo., 604 P.2d 537 (1979). McCutcheon sets out the three elements generally required to support a claimed plain view justification.4 While it is true that the presence of these three elements will sustain a plain-view claim, it is important to note, as the majority opinion does, that in Coolidge several limitations on the doctrine’s application were identified. See: LaFave, Search and Seizure, Vol. 1, § 2.2, p. 244 (1978). These limitations were pointed up by Justice Stewart in his plurality opinion in Coolidge:
“The limits on the doctrine are implicit in the statement of its rationale. The first of these is that plain view alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence. This is simply a corollary of the familiar principle discussed above, that no amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure absent ‘exigent circumstances.' Incontrovertible testimony of the senses that an incriminating object is on premises belonging to a criminal suspect may establish the fullest possible measure of probable cause. But even where the object is contraband, this Court has repeatedly stated and enforced the basic rule that the police may not enter and make a warrantless seizure.”5 (Emphasis added.) 403 U.S. at 468, 91 S.Ct. at 2039.
From this it must be assumed that, absent some prior justification for the intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, a plain-view encounter with incriminating evidence cannot justify a warrantless seizure. As noted by Justice Marshall in Steagald v. United States, such justification for war-rantless entry can come from a consent to enter, or it can be due to the presence of exigent circumstances. 101 S.Ct. at 1647. *71Other justification for the warrantless seizure can also arise when the police are in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect or engaged in responding to an emergency. United States v. Anthon, 648 F.2d 669, 675 (10th Cir. 1981) citing from Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34-35, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 1971-1973, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970). In the final analysis, the law requires not only that plain view satisfy the prior-intrusion standards (as in McCuteheon, supra) but also that any war-rantless seizure be justified under one of the above exceptions. In this case, therefore, the actions of the officers must not only have satisfied the prior-intrusion rule of McCuteheon, but there must also have been exigent circumstances present to legalize the seizure since none of the other delineated exceptions are applicable.6
With the above in mind, I can agree that the majority opinion applies the search of the cabin under the correct standards governing plain-view justifications to the cabin’s search. My problems, however, arise because I am simply unable to agree that the facts of this case, as applied to the rules and standards discussed above, warrant any finding except that the initial entry into the cabin was illegal and violative of appellant’s constitutional rights.
I take issue with two of the conclusions reached in the majority opinion. First of all, I cannot conclude that the facts support a finding of inadvertence on the part of the police, nor can I agree with the further conclusion that the warrantless entry and subsequent seizure of the evidence was justified by the presence of “exigent circumstances.”
In McCuteheon v. State, supra, we set out three requirements for justifying the discovery of evidence under the plain-view doctrine, the third of those being that the discovery be inadvertent. 604 P.2d at 540-541.7 The majority support the conclusion that the officer’s discovery was inadvertent. For me, the evidence can lead to but one conclusion — namely, that the officers stopped at this particular cabin, not because their curiosity was piqued by a flapping plastic or an interest in the area’s historical attractions, but, rather, with the intent to see if Mr. Jessee was involved in the crime. The evidence leads unerringly to the conclusion that the officers arrived at the cabin site because Jessee furnished them a map and an oral description, showing them the way and describing the adobe-roof feature of the cabin. I also have trouble concluding that the officers, while looking for the Portschy trailer home, just happened to stop at this cabin. Was it that the cabin looked like a trailer? It is also noteworthy that both officers passed up investigating several other cabins in the vicinity, and by sheer coincidence decided to investigate only the one containing the stolen items. In summary, I say that the facts surrounding the officers’ investigation of the cabin and its contents cannot support a conclusion that the discovery was inadvertent. I would have held that the claim of plain view did not satisfy this particular requirement of McCuteheon.
However, for purposes of discussion only, permit me to assume, arguendo, that the McCuteheon inadvertence requirement was complied with. I would, nevertheless, hold that there is insufficient evidence in the record to satisfy the exigent-circumstance requirement for a warrantless intrusion into the interior of the premises.8
The majority support their finding of exigent circumstances noting that the officers, upon discovery of the evidence, feared that if it was not seized immediately it might be destroyed. The majority also seek to support their position by pointing out that the *72investigation took place on a Sunday, Lander was some 46 miles away, and the officers were not clothed for the frigid weather in a way which would permit one of them to remain in the vicinity of the cabin while the other went for a warrant. These factors can all be taken into account but I do not believe that, even taken together, they constitute the exigent circumstances contemplated by the case law.
As a general rule, threatened destruction of evidence can be a sufficient exigent circumstance to justify a warrantless intrusion. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948). To justify a warrantless seizure on the basis of destruction of evidence, the perceived danger must be real and apparent. The question is whether there is a real or substantial likelihood that the contraband or known evidence on the premises might be removed or destroyed before a warrant could be obtained. State v. Dorson, 62 Haw. 377, 615 P.2d 740 (1980). Courts have held that warrantless entry and seizure was not justified even though individuals were on the premises at the time a plain-view discovery occurred. State v. Dias, supra; State v. Schur, 217 Kan. 741, 538 P.2d 689 (1975); Coleman v. Reilly, 8 Wash.App. 684, 508 P.2d 1035 (1973). The mere fact that the evidence is of a type that is easily removed, hidden or destroyed, does not, in and of itself, constitute an exigent circumstance. Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 90 S.Ct. 1969, 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970). The State, therefore, carries a heavy burden when it attempts to justify a warrant-less entry on the basis of “exigent circumstance.” In this case, the State has not met this burden by any stretch of the imagination. Here the officers testified that no one was in the area when they were there, the cabin was located in a remote area, and the officers’ presence were not detected. From these and other facts of record I would conclude that there was no showing that the threatened destruction of evidence was a real possibility. As stated in State v. Dorson, supra:
“The police must be able to point to specific and articulable facts from which it may be determined that the action they took was necessitated by the exigencies of the situation.” 615 P.2d at 748.
Thus I would conclude that a search of the record fails to disclose any specific factors which would lend support to the officers’ subjective belief that in the time it would have taken to obtain a warrant the evidence would have been removed or destroyed.
Mere inconvenience in procuring a warrant is never enough to justify warrantless seizure. Johnson v. United States, supra, 333 U.S. at 15, 68 S.Ct. at 369, State v. Texeira, 62 Haw. 44, 609 P.2d 131 (1980). Even though it was a Sunday and the officers were some 45 miles from town, such factors only reflect upon the inconvenience that was attendant upon the business of obtaining a search warrant. Admitting that some difficulty would have hampered the officers’ attempts to obtain a warrant, I still cannot conclude that the law justified their warrantless seizure of the items in the cabin.
Once in a while the law likes to make room for what it calls “common sense”9 but in this case, where the question involves a warrantless intrusion into a man’s home, the law, in my view, does not permit the justification for the search and seizure to stem from notions of “common sense” alone. As was eloquently discussed in Johnson v. United States, supra:
“The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption that *73evidence sufficient to support a magistrate’s disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity and leave the people’s homes secure only in the discretion of police officers.” 333 U.S. at 13-14, 68 S.Ct. at 369.
We must jealously protect the warrant requirement found in our constitutions, and, in doing so, we must, when the facts necessitate a finding that a warrant was needed, exclude all evidence obtained as a result of the unconstitutional, warrantless entry.
I would have held that the officers’ entry into the cabin violated appellant’s constitutional rights and that the items of evidence seized should have been suppressed. It was clear error not to do so, and I would have reversed.
Lastly, I should say that I am not in agreement with the position of Justice Thomas where he advocates abandoning our historical position with respect to the exclusionary rule. If this court is not careful, we are going to chip away at the Fourth Amendment rights of the American citizen until — one day — they will have disappeared altogether. We must never forget that these rights were forged out of the steel and fire of bitter human experience which warns that, for all of those who may one day need the protecting arms of the criminal justice system (including you and me), there must be ground rules which will protect against the unscrupulous, the overzealous and their wiles. To pretend that these threatening forces have not found and will not find their way into the system is to close our eyes to reality, which we do at the risk of collapsing the greatest criminal justice system the mind of man has ever devised.

. For the language of the applicable amendments see nn. 2 and 3 of the majority opinion.

. See: Rakas v. Illinois, supra, United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 *69U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Parkhurst v. State, supra.

. See: n. 8 of the majority opinion.

. See p. 63 of the majority opinion, 604 P.2d at 540.

. In support of this position Justice Stewart relied on Taylor v. United States, 286 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 466, 76 L.Ed. 951 (1932), and Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 45 S.Ct. 414, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925).
In Taylor, the Court found that even though the prohibition officers smelled the odor of whiskey permeating from the garage and also viewed the cases marked whiskey, they nevertheless did not possess justifiable reasons under the circumstances for entering Taylor’s garage without a warrant. 286 U.S. at 6, 52 S.Ct. at 467.
On the other hand, in Steele, the Court determined that the officer’s observations of the whiskey being unloaded from a truck in front of appellant’s warehouse clearly provided them with sufficient probable cause for issuance of the search warrant later obtained.
No circumstances were shown in either instance which would have justified a warrant-less entry.

. In McCutcheon, supra, there was a consent to the search of the vehicle.

. The majority say at p. 62:
“The plain-view doctrine is applied when a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).”

.The majority concede that plain view alone is not enough where there is expectation of privacy and that, in addition, there must be an exigent-circumstance showing which justifies warrantless seizure of evidence.

. What may be “common sense” to you may be the most uncommon sense to me.