Opinion
No. 03-10114-01-WEB
September 29, 2003
Memorandum and Order
This matter came before the court on September 26, 2003, for a hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The court orally denied the motion at the conclusion of the hearing. This written memorandum will supplement the court's oral ruling.
I. Facts.
The court finds the following facts from the evidence presented at the hearing. Gary Knight is the Chief of Police in Plainville, Kansas. He has received training and is certified in the investigation and processing of clandestine methamphetamine labs. On a few occasions in the past, Knight has cooperated with local trash haulers on "trash digs," where trash that has been placed outside a resident's home for disposal has been retrieved by the trash hauler and then taken to the police for examination. The City of Plainville contracts with Collins Trash Service to provide trash hauling services to residents of the City. Collins Trash Service is run by two brothers, Joel and John Collins. Sometime in the morning of May 20, 2003, Chief Knight approached Joel Collins as the brothers were working their route and asked Joel to retrieve any trash placed outside that day at defendant David Hamilton's residence, 600 S. Meridian in Plainville, and to bring the trash to him for examination. Collins agreed to do so. Knight had received information that Hamilton was engaged in manufacturing methamphetamine.
The defendant was a regular customer, and the Collins were scheduled to make their regular trash pick-up that day at the defendant's residence. The Collins came by at the usual time, between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Just before they reached the residence, they compacted the trash in the back of their hopper so that the hopper would be empty when they got to the defendant's house. The defendant typically set his trash out for collection in barrels placed inside a wooden bracket or corral next to an alley behind his house. Photos of the bracket show that it was located well behind the house, out in the open, and within a few feet of an alleyway open to passers-by and vehicle traffic. See Government's Exhibits 1-5. There are several other trash barrels and brackets in the alley that belong to the other houses bordering the alley. There are also utility poles and gas service meters on edge of the alleyway. When the Collins came by on May 20, 2003, the defendant's trash was in the usual place for collection. There were two or three trash barrels in the bracket and a few plastic trash bags inside the barrels. The barrels had no lids on them. The plastic trash bags were dark-colored and were tied shut with ordinary twist ties.
The Collins collected the defendant's trash bags and placed them in the hopper. They proceeded to collect trash from a nearby residence, keeping those bags separate from the defendant's, and then drove to the local fire station. They informed Chief Knight that they had obtained the defendant's trash. At the fire station, Plainville Police Captain Troy Rudman placed the bags out and opened them. He found materials inside indicating the manufacture of methamphetamine, including a large number of empty boxes of cold medications containing pseudoephedrine (the primary ingredient in methamphetamine), small zip-lock baggies containing a substance that field-tested positive for methamphetamine, and razor blades and other tools sometimes used in manufacturing methamphetamine. Based on the items found, Captain Rudman filled out an application for a search warrant for the defendant's residence and submitted it to a Magistrate Judge of the Rooks County District Court. The Judge issued a warrant at 3:59 p.m. that afternoon and the warrant was executed the same day. Additional incriminating items were found in the search of the defendant's house.
II. Arguments on Motion to Suppress.
The defendant argues that the officers' search of his trash violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. He attempts to distinguish the Supreme Court's rejection of a similar claim in California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), by arguing that his trash bags were not placed at curbside for pickup like the bags in Greenwood, but were instead "placed within an enclosed garbage bin by his garage." Defendant also argues that his case is different from Greenwood because he used dark-colored trash bags that were tied shut, which shows that he had an expectation of privacy in the contents. Finally, he argues that the search of his house must be suppressed because it was a product of the unlawful search of the garbage.
III. Discussion.
In Greenwood, the Supreme Court found that the warrantless search and seizure of garbage bags left at the curb of an individual's house did not violate his individual's Fourth Amendment rights. The Court found that the defendant had exposed his garbage to the public in such a way as to defeat any claim to Fourth Amendment protection:
It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through respondents' trash or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. Accordingly, having deposited their garbage "in an area particularly suited for public inspection and, in a manner of speaking, public consumption, for the express purpose of having strangers take it," [. . .] respondents could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items that they discarded.Id., 486 U.S. at 40 [footnotes and citations omitted]. Similarly, in United States v. Long, 176 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 1999), the Tenth Circuit found that a search of garbage bags that had been placed outside for collection near an alley did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the bags were not located within the curtilage of the home and thus were not protected. Id. at 1307. The court further stated that even the bags were within the curtilage, the defendant's placement of the bags next to an alleyway sufficiently exposed them to the public such that he could claim no reasonable expectation of privacy in their contents. Id. at 1308-09.
The instant case is in all material respects indistinguishable from the cases cited above. The evidence shows that the defendant can claim no reasonable expectation of privacy in the trash bags that were examined by the police. The photographs of the defendant's trash collection bracket, as well as the testimony of the witnesses, show that the trash bags were left within a few feet of an alleyway accessible to vehicles and passers-by. The bracket was located at the back of the property in an area open to public view and easily accessible to "animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." Cf. Greenwood, 486 U.S. at 40. The defendant placed the bags at the edge of the alley in a location specifically designated for trash disposal. The bags were clearly placed there for the express purpose of conveying them to the trash collector, who "might himself have sorted through [the] trash or permitted others, such as the police, to do so." Id. Given the location and disposition of the bags, the fact that the defendant used dark-colored plastic trash bags and tied them shut does not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. See United States v. Shanks, 97 F.3d 977, 980 (7th Cir. 1996) (finding no expectation of privacy where the items were contained in sealed opaque bags).
IV. Conclusion.
The defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 19) is DENIED.