Cited by

(explaining that boxes and bags placed in a garbage can behind a duplex were “abandoned property in which defendant no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy”); (affirming warrantless “search of garbage which had been placed on the curb for routine collection”); (concluding that “the examination of the garbage, which was procured without trespassing on the defendant’s premises, was lawful”).

8 Abandonment occurs when a defendant has “re linquished his expectation of privacy with respect to the property.”

See, e.g. , State v. Oquist , (recognizing that expectation of privacy in items placed in garbage can is lost once garbage is outside curtila ge of private residence); cf. Minn. Stat. § 609.06, 6 We note that the phrase “in this state” appears elsewhere throughout the drivers’-license statutes, often to describe the jurisdi

“[T]he critical inquiry in claims of unlawful search and seizure is whether or not the person who claims the protection of the fourth amendment has a justifiable or reasonable expectation of privacy in the invaded place or the seized items.” State v. Oquist , (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in contents of the plas tic bags placed in or near defendant’s open garbage can).

But “an examination of garbage by the police is a search and is therefore subject to the constraints imposed by the Fourth Amendment.”

5 (citing Greenwood, 486 U.S. at 40, 108 S. Ct. at 1629); Krech, d at 636-37 (holding no Fourth Amendment violation where garbage was left a few feet from an alley and searched by police); (holding that police did not violate a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by searching garbage left at curb); (holding no Fourth Amendment violation where deputies picked up plastic garbage bags near a public alley while not leaving paved portion of alley to reach the bags); d 700, 703-04 (Minn. App. 2002) (h

The State urged the district court to deny the suppression motion, in which we held “the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the contents of the plastic bags placed in or near his open garbage can” when the contents were examined “without trespassing on the defendant’s premises.” The district court denied the motion to suppress, conclu

The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that “a householder may ordinarily have some expectation of privacy in the items he places in his garbage can.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that “a householder may ordinarily have some expectation of privacy in the items he places in his garbage can.”

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 , 88 S.Ct.

rea, in close proximity to a public way, or in an outdoors communal trash container serving an apartment building”); (holding that police did not violate defendant’s fourth amendment rights in seizing and searching three plastic bags full of garbage which defendant had put out for collection at the curb at the edge of his driveway); (holding that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic bags placed in or near his open garbage cans and that the police did not

has noted that “a householder may ordinarily have some expectation of privacy in the items he places in his garbage can.” Such an expectation of privacy, however, must be one that society would view as justifiable or reasonable.

Search of the garbage resulted in the discovery of marijuana residue, which in turn led to the issuance of a warrant to search the “premises” described as “110 South Western Avenue, a two-story white wood frame house with green trim.” where we held on similar facts that the police there did not violate the defendant’s fourth amendment rights.