Court Opinion

ID: 9741290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:52:47.301238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.268821
License: Public Domain

Brodkey, J.,
concurring in result.
While I concur in the result reached by the majority of the court, I must strongly disagree with the grounds upon which the majority opinion is based, to wit, that the search by the police of the unsealed and partially opened cardboard box carried by the defendant and placed by him upon the ground prior to the search was a valid “consent search” pursuant to the voluntary and uncoerced consent and permission of the defendant. Of the various available grounds for affirming the conviction of the defendant in this case, the one selected by the majority of the court is, in my opinion, by far the weakest, and not sustained by the record. There are, however, several other valid grounds not mentioned or referred to in the majority opinion upon which de*748fendant’s conviction can and should be sustained, as hereinafter discussed.
The sole and only basis for the conclusion of the majority that the defendant gave his consent to a search of the box is the following testimony of Officer Dickerson given at the preliminary hearing in this matter, as follows: “Q. And what was -- what happened next. A. Well, I asked him if he had any objections if we looked in the box to see what he had. He was coming out from a store. Q. What was his response? A. Well, as far as I remember he said that he didn’t make any objections.” (Emphasis supplied.) It should be noted, however, that when Officer Dickerson testified at the trial regarding the incident, he made no mention of the foregoing alleged consent to search, but only testified that he had asked the defendant what was in the box, but that the defendant did not tell him, and also that the box was partially opened and “we looked inside.” He was then asked: “Do you remember testifying back at the Preliminary Hearing, don’t you, in this matter? A. Yes, sir. Q. And I believe that on approximately page fifty-three of the Preliminary Hearing testimony, I believe the question was asked, ‘What, if anything, did he tell you?’ This is after you had stopped him. Then you stated in response, ‘He didn’t tell me anything and I opened the --’ Then you just stopped and the question came back. ‘He didn’t make any response at all when you asked him what was in the box? Answer: Well, he didn’t tell me what was in the box, he just said it was something.’” Officer Dickerson also testified that he was in uniform at that time. Chief of Police Valentine of York, Nebraska, who was also present at the time of the questioning, testified at the trial with reference to the defendant Ohler as follows: “I asked him if that was his box and he stated it was, and at that time, there was another sergeant present, which was Sergeant Leach and he opened the box up and it had two pair of boots in it.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Even assuming, however, that it was Officer *749Dickerson who had the conversation with the defendant immediately prior to the time that he searched the cardboard box, it is clear from the foregoing testimony that the officer, who was in uniform, did not directly and positively testify that the defendant had given him his consent to search the box, but merely testified that “as far as he could remember” the defendant did not make any objections.
“Consent to search is not to be lightly inferred, but should be shown by clear and convincing evidence, and any consent must be voluntary and uncoerced, either physically or psychologically. The government has the burden of proving the alleged consent. And it has been said that courts do not look with favor on the practice of substituting consent for the authorization of a search warrant.” 68 Am. Jur. 2d Searches and Seizures § 46 at 699 (1973). It is the general rule that “when statements of accused clearly indicate that the search or seizure is made with his voluntary consent he will be held to have waived his rights under the guaranty. Where, however, the surrounding circumstances show that they were not voluntarily made, the courts have generally regarded statements which ostensibly indicated invitation or consent to search as being involuntarily made, and hence not constituting consent or waiver.” 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 62 at 821-22 (1952). See, also, note 89 at 822 of the above citation, where particular statements are set out which have been held by the courts not to constitute waiver or consent.
The case of State v. French, 203 Neb. 435, 279 N.W.2d 116 (1979), cited in the majority opinion for the proposition that whether or not consent to search was freely and intelligently given is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances surrounding it, is actually and factually more in support of the position of the defendant with reference to his alleged consent to search than it is authority for the State. That case involved the search of the house of the *750defendant by two deputy sheriffs, Earhart and Anderson. While Deputy Earhart led the defendant into the open and handcuffed him and put him in the police car, the defendant heard Deputy Anderson break open the kitchen door. While the defendant was sitting in the police car handcuffed he was asked for permission to go into the house, although no purpose for such entry was suggested. The defendant responded: “‘Well, yeah. It won’t make any difference anyway.’” In its opinion the court stated at 440, 279 N.W.2d at 119: “Even if Deputy Earhart might have believed, at that point, that the defendant had given voluntary, knowing, and intelligent consent to enter the house, Earhart discovered very shortly thereafter that Deputy Anderson had already broken into the house without any authorization whatever. Deputy Earhart was sufficiently uncertain about the consent situation, in view of the circumstances, that he returned to the defendant and said: ‘You would have given us consent anyway, wouldn’t you?’ The defendant answered: ‘No.’ Earhart confirmed that answer on cross-examination.” In that opinion we stated at 441, 279 N.W.2d at 120: “It was neither reasonable nor justifiable for them to conclude that they had the voluntary and intelligent consent of the defendant to make a search. The search was unreasonable. The motion to suppress should have been granted.” In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the trial court apparently found that the defendant, by the single ambiguous statement set out above, had consented to the search of the box in question, I believe that the evidence introduced was clearly not sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant intended to waive his constitutional immunity to an illegal search and seizure.
However, even assuming arguendo that this court could conclude from the foregoing evidence, without straining its credulity, that the foregoing ambiguous statement allegedly made by the defendant was sufficient to constitute a consent to search the cardboard *751box, I am of the opinion that the majority of this court might better and should have based its opinion on other and stronger existing grounds, primarily that the defendant’s fourth amendment rights were not violated for the reason that he did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the unsealed, partially opened cardboard box. The law is now well settled, and is so recognized in the majority opinion, that the capacity to claim the protection of the fourth amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place, but upon whether the person who claims the protection of the amendment has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place. See, Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978); Case Note, 13 Creighton L. Rev. 653 (1979); Case Note, 58 Neb. L. Rev. 1123 (1979). On June 25, 1980, the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S. Ct. 2547, 65 L. Ed. 2d 619, expressly overruled the case of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S. Ct. 725, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1960), which case had held that defendants charged with crimes of possession were entitled to claim “automatic standing” to challenge the legality of the search which produced the evidence against them, without regard to whether the defendants had an expectation of privacy in the area or premises searched or the property seized. In Salvucci, the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that defendants charged with crimes of possession may only claim the benefits of the exclusionary rule if their own fourth amendment rights have been violated. In Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S. Ct. 2556, 65 L. Ed. 2d 633 (1980), a case announced the same day as Salvucci, the court held that a defendant charged with the crime of possession has the burden of proof in establishing that he has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or the article seized. It is clear from the existing authorities that the defendant did not sustain his burden of proof that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the cardboard box *752which was searched and the articles contained therein which were seized by the York city police. The courts have differentiated between various types of containers which are entitled to an “expectation of privacy,” regardless of their location or the right to possess them. In United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1977), the court noted that “luggage is intended as a repository of personal effects,” and that the defendants, by placing their property in a locked footlocker, “manifested an expectation that the contents would remain free from public examination.” Later, in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S. Ct. 2586, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1979), the court stated that certain containers such as luggage, suitcases, or footlockers were “inevitably associated with the expectation of privacy,” and because of their recognition in society as a repository for personal effects, their presence in a car or having fallen into public hands does not alter the reasonableness of an expectation that they will not be opened by the police. The court also held in that case that not all containers, packages, or parcels deserve the full protection of the fourth amendment, and differentiated their fourth amendment treatment from that associated with personal luggage. An excellent and exhaustive review of the cases differentiating the types of containers which will be afforded the protection of the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures and indicating the types to which the “expectation of privacy” standard will apply is found in the recent case of People v. Maldonado, 76 App. Div. 2d 691, 431 N.Y.S.2d 580 (1980). With reference to the type of container involved in the instant case, the court in Maldonado had the following to say at 696, 431 N.Y.S.2d at 583:
“More troublesome are cases which involve searches of containers which are neither luggage nor have any of the attributes thereof. The courts, with the notable exception of the California Supreme Court in People v Dalton (24 Cal 3d 850, cert den sub nom. California *753v Dalton, 445 US 946 [wherein the warrantless search of a large metal box and a ‘Longine’ box was deemed to be unlawful]), have generally upheld searches of unsecured boxes (United States v Neumann, 585 F2d 355; State v Kahlon, 172 NJ Super 331), paper bags (United States v Ross, _F2d_ [DC Cir, TAMM, J., April 17, 1980]; United States v Vento, 533 F2d 838; Clark v State, 574 P2d 1261 [Alaska]; Webb v State, supra [dictum]), and other receptacles such as: plastic bags (United States v Gooch, 603 F2d 122; Flynn v State, 374 So 2d 1041 [Fla]), a closed but unlocked toolbox (Wyss v State, 262 Ark 502), a covered paper cup People v Diaz, 101 Cal App 3d 440) and an ice chest (State v Heberly, 120 Ariz 541).
“On the other hand, several courts have invalidated searches of nonluggage type containers which are locked (People v Dalton, supra [metal box]), zippered (People v Belton, 50 NY2d 447 [zippered pockets of a jacket found in a car during a warrantless search of the vehicle]; United States v Markland, 489 F Supp 932 [an insulated bag]), taped (United States v Dien, 609 F2d 1038 [cardboard box]; People v Spencer, 74 AD2d 77 [cardboard box]), or fastened shut (People v Rinaldo, 80 Ill App 3d 433 [large box with metal straps]).
Among the cases cited in Maldonado, supra, is United States v. Neumann, 588 F.2d 355 (8th Cir. 1978), in which the court considered a warrantless search of a department store box and stated at 360-61: “This court is of the opinion that the warrant requirement in Chadwick should not be extended to the facts of this case. There is simply an insufficient expectation of privacy in an unsecured cardboard box sitting in plain view in the passenger compartment of an automobile. The arresting officers merely lifted the lid of the box and discovered a large quantity of pills.” The court in Maldonado also stated at 700, 431 N.W.S.2d at 585: “While a box of this sort is commonly used to transport *754recently purchased clothing, it is hardly comparable to personal luggage which securely encases varied articles of a personal nature. Like the department store box in Neumann, the ‘Ripley Howard’ box was discovered in plain view on the floor of the automobile, and could be opened by merely lifting a lid.”
We note in passing, however, that if the defendant in this case would have sealed the cardboard box, or would have securely tied or fastened it in some manner, thereby manifesting a special expectation of privacy, the search by the police would have required the issuance of a search warrant under the law above quoted.
I also think that the majority opinion in this case might well have found that the search in question was one incident to an arrest, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was arrested after the search was accomplished. The fact is, however, that the arrest was almost contemporaneous with, and immediately followed, the search of the box and the “pat down” of the defendant in which a spatula was discovered on his person. In Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S. Ct. 2556, 65 L. Ed. 2d 633 (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court stated at 111: “Where the formal arrest followed quickly on the heels of the challenged search of petitioner’s person, we do not believe it particularly important that the search preceded the arrest rather than vise versa.”
Finally, I point out that the actual search of the defendant’s car, during which the burglary tools were discovered, was done pursuant to a validly issued search warrant. While it conceivably may be argued that this violated the “fruits of the poisonous tree” doctrine, this is entirely conjectural, and I am far from convinced that it did. If it be concluded that a search, and the resulting evidence recovered in such search, was valid and did not constitute the “fruits of the poisonous tree,” then such evidence would clearly be sufficient in itself to sustain the conviction of the defendant.
*755For all of the above stated reasons, I can only concur in the result reached by the majority of this court in its opinion, and strongly believe that the opinion should have been based upon other grounds than it was.