State v. Sampson - 362 Md. 438, 765 A.2d 629 (2001)

Rule:

If the trash is placed for collection at a place that is readily accessible, and thus exposed, to the public, the person has relinquished any reasonable expectation of privacy.

Facts:

Based on certain information, officers drove to defendant Donna Sampson’s house just before the trash collector was due to arrive. Defendant's home had a rather shallow front yard that led to a municipal sidewalk. In the yard near the sidewalk was a tree where trash bags were left, about two to three feet from the sidewalk. Standing on the sidewalk, the officer simply reached over the two to three feet of lawn and picked up the bags without stepping on the lawn itself. The bags were taken to the station where incriminating evidence was found, which became the basis for a search warrant. At the suppression hearing, defendant claimed that she had a “No Trespassing” sign posted prominently in her front window. The officers testified that the sign was not present during the month-long period that they picked up the trash but was put up later. The trial judge credited the officers' testimony, and defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine and maintaining a common nuisance. The Court of Special Appeals (Maryland) reversed defendant’s convictions, finding that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in trash bags that were placed on her lawn, which officers seized without a warrant. The State sought review of the decision.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, did the seizure of the trash bags and their contents violate the defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, thereby tainting the validity of the search warrant?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed defendant's convictions. According to the Court, if the trash was placed for collection at a place that was readily accessible, and thus exposed, to the public, defendant had relinquished any reasonable expectation of privacy. In determining an expectation of privacy, the focus was on whether the person placed his or her trash, for collection, in an area at or near a public way or area, so that it was readily accessible to the public. If so, it mattered not whether that area was technically within or without the boundary of the curtilage.