Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
News (Media Awareness Project) - US IN: State's Justices Set Limits On Police Searches Of Trash
Title:US IN: State's Justices Set Limits On Police Searches Of Trash
Published On:2005-03-26
Source:Courier-Journal, The (KY)
Fetched On:2008-01-16 19:44:47
STATE'S JUSTICES SET LIMITS ON POLICE SEARCHES OF TRASH

INDIANAPOLIS -- Police investigators must have reason to suspect that
a crime has been committed before they can search curbside trash for
evidence, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled.

The justices set limits on both police powers and privacy rights in
their 5-0 decision Thursday.

People cannot reasonably expect their trash to remain private once it
is set out for collection, the court held, but that does not give
police the freedom to search it indiscriminately.

"The citizen expects that trash to be collected and has effectively
ceded all rights in it," Justice Theodore Boehm wrote in the 11-page
ruling. But, he added, "Allowing random searches, or searches of those
individuals whom the officers hope to find in possession of
incriminating evidence gives excessive discretion to engage in fishing
expeditions." The case involved a July 2002 state police search of two
trash barrels on property belonging to Patrick and Susan May
Litchfield of rural Marshall County. The couple's address was on a
list provided by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration of
Indiana residents who had received shipments from a gardening supply
store that had advertised in High Times, a magazine about marijuana
culture.

Troopers removed several garbage bags during two searches and found
marijuana and burnt rolling papers. After obtaining a search warrant,
investigators reported finding 51 marijuana plants growing on the back
deck of the Litchfields' home.

The Litchfields argued in Marshall Superior Court that the search of
their trash was unreasonable under Indiana's constitution. But the
judge denied their motion, and the state Court of Appeals upheld his
ruling. The Supreme Court neither rejected nor upheld the warrantless
search. Instead, it sent the case back to Marshall Superior Court to
determine whether the search had been reasonable.

The justices said it was not clear from court records whether state
police could be reasonably certain that the Litchfields had answered
an advertisement in High Times or merely bought items from a company
that happened to advertise in the magazine.
Member Comments
No member comments available...