Court Opinion

ID: 9781891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 17:35:16.245949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:41.100036
License: Public Domain

Bukaty, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Hoffman retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash.
*899It appears the facts in this case make it one of first impression in this state. I agree with the majority that the issue boils down to whether a person who places his or her trash out for collection by a third party — here, county sanitation workers — no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that trash based only on the fact he or she placed it for collection.
State v. Fisher, 283 Kan. 272, 154 P.3d 455 (2007), mentioned by the majority, does not, in my view, answer the question since the facts there are significantly distinguishable from those here. As the majority points out, the defendant in Fisher left his trash out in his yard a distance away from streets and highways next to a barrel in which he apparently intended to bum it. He never intended that anyone pick it up or have any access to it. He intended to dispose of it himself. His expectation of privacy in that trash was clearly reasonable.
In my view, that same expectation is lácldng in this case. Hoffman was not required to participate in the trash pick-up service offered by the local government. He voluntarily did so. He regularly placed his trash in the dumpster with the expectation that it would be picked up on an established schedule, removed from his property, and disposed of by sanitation personnel. It is very likely that many people would or could have access to the trash while it was in the track, in the landfill, at an incinerator, or wherever else it might be taken for disposal. It strikes me then, that any expectation of privacy on Hoffman’s part is not objectively reasonable under these circumstances.
The majority places much significance on the fact the dumpster where Hoffman placed his trash was located approximately 1/4 mile from the public highway and not visible until one traveled some distance on the private road leading to the dumpster. It cites California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 100 L. Ed. 2d 30, 108 S. Ct. 1625 (1988), and other cases which hold that where trash is left for collection next to the public street, the owner.no longer has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. According to the majority, this proximity of the trash to the public right-of-way after it is left for collection is required before the owner loses his or her expectation of privacy.
*900Granted, Hoffman’s trash was not placed near the public right-of-way and was not as accessible to the public as was the trash involved in Greenwood. In my view, however, this does not diminish the fact that several people would and could have access to the trash after sanitation workers removed it from Hoffman’s property. Hoffman had to reasonably expect that. When Hoffman placed the trash in the dumpster for collection, he essentially was declaring that he did not want it nor did he care what happened to it. I do not read Greenwood and the other cases to unequivocally and clearly state that only when trash is placed near a street or otherwise accessible to the public is the owner’s expectation of privacy extinguished.
I find the decision in United States v. Moss, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (M.D. Tenn. 2001), to be persuasive. There, city residents did not have to place their trash at curbside for collection. City sanitation workers would drive city trucks onto each resident’s property and even go to the back door if necessary to collect trash. In Moss’ situation, trash collectors would drive approximately 75 feet down the driveway and then walk around behind the house to collect the trash. Law enforcement officers seized Moss’ trash on five separate occasions in similar fashion as occurred here. In upholding the seizures, the United States District Court stated:
“While Defendant may have had a subjective privacy interest in the garbage he deposited in the rear of his home for collection by the city sanitation worker, this Court finds that society would not find it reasonable for a person to possess a legitimate expectation of privacy in trash that is left for collection when the regularly scheduled time for collection arrives. . . .
“. . .At the designated time for collection, it is expected that a third party will access the designated place for collection and take possession of the trash for removal from the resident’s property, regardless of whether trash is located within the curtilage or outside of the curtilage, and without regard for whether or not the garbage is readily accessible to the general public. Society would not find it reasonable for a person to claim he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage he has placed for collection when the designated time for collection arrives. . . . The fact that [a law enforcement officer] assisted the city sanitation worker in loading some of Defendant’s garbage onto the city truck on two occasions does not equate to an infringement upon any societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment.” (Emphasis added.) 175 F. Supp. 2d at 1071.
*901I would reverse the district court’s suppression of the trash search.