Court Opinion

ID: 9796009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:45:06.631533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:44:07.892045
License: Public Domain

ALLEGRUCCI, J.,
dissenting: I agree with the majority that the district court erred in failing to suppress the warrantless seizure of the trash bag. I disagree with the majority’s rationale that absent the contents of the trash bag there was sufficient “lawfully obtained evidence” to support the magistrate issuing the search warrant. In my view, we have a failure by the State to establish that a crime has been committed on the defendant’s property.
The majority justifies its decision on the observations of an officer and unidentified citizens. The observations by the citizens were: (1) burning of trash outside giving off a peculiar smell; (2) a van arrived, and several boxes were unloaded; and (3) several vehicles came and, after a short time, left. The officer observed: (1) a strong smell of ether and (2) through binoculars that there were yellow containers in the trash bag. None of these observed acts were unlawful or criminal. Only the strong smell of ether could possibly result from illegal activity, and the majority correctly notes that the smell of ether standing alone does not constitute probable cause. The yellow containers were not identified as Heet bottles *330until the trash bag was unlawfully seized. Nonetheless, the possession of Heet is not unlawful, nor is its use, which could explain the peculiar smell.
The majority applies the totality of circumstances as if it were a magical formula to find probable cause where none exists. How does the totality of several perfectly lawful activities constitute probable cause that a crime has been committed? Granted tire activity, in its totality, may be suspicious, but suspicion is not sufficient for a magistrate to issue a search warrant.
This court in reviewing a motion to suppress evidence does not reweigh the evidence, nor do we rubber stamp an improper determination of probable cause in the guise of the totality of the circumstances analysis. Here the question is whether there was substantive evidence to support the magistrate’s determination that probable cause existed to issue the search warrant. There was not, and the motion to suppress should have been granted.
I would reverse both the district court and the Court of Appeals and remand for a new trial.