Court Opinion

ID: 9812249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:38:17.347326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:37.556359
License: Public Domain

*208PRICE, J.,
filed a concurring opinion.
I agree with the Court’s resolution of the plain-view and community-caretaking issues and readily join those facets of the Court’s opinion.1 I do not join the Court’s standing analysis, however, because I believe the Court has misconceived the issue. Perhaps misguided by the State Prosecuting Attorney’s formulation of the issue,2 the Court asks whether the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched.3 But it is not really the legality of the search that is in issue here. Indeed, the Court acknowledges as much in its plain-view analysis, correctly concluding that there was no search involved because the trial court found that the authorities could fully obseiwe the dogs, and their lamentable condition, without intruding even upon the curtilage of the house.4 Therefore, the question is really whether the appellant had standing on the facts presented by virtue of an ownership or possessory interest in the things that were seized, viz., the dogs. It is undisputed on the record that the dogs were his, and that should suffice to resolve the standing issue in his favor.5 Whether the appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage of the home strikes me as beside the point when the dispositive question is whether he had standing to challenge the seizure.

. Majority Opinion at 11-15.

. Id. at 6.

. Id. at 6-11.

. Id. at 11-12. Compare Florida v. Jardines, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) (drug-sniff dog's physical intrusion upon the curtilage of a home in order to detect facts giving rise to probable cause itself constitutes a "search” for Fourth Amendment purposes).

. See United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 72 S.Ct. 93, 95-96, 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) (defendant had standing to challenge the warrant-less seizure of narcotics in a hotel room occupied by his aunts by virtue of the fact that he was allowed access to the premises "at will” and he had a property interest in the seized narcotics); see also Wayne R. LaFave, 6 Search and Seizure. A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 11.3(c), at 225 (5th ed. 2012) ("Assume now a situation in which the defendant moving to suppress certain evidence has established a property interest in those effects but has not in addition established any expectation of privacy as to them.... Is such a person totally without standing? Not at all. Though there is little authority directly in point ..., it would seem- that a ‘possessory interest in the item seized should give rise to fourth amendment protection and should entitle an individual to challenge the reasonableness of the seizure.’ ” (quoting William A. Knox, Some Thoughts on the Scope of the Fourth Amendment and Standing to Challenge Searches and Seizures, 40 Mo.L.Rev. 1, 50 (1975))):