C Suspect Abandonment and Police Retrieval/search of Personal Effects
Library | Illinois Decisions on Search and Seizure (2017 Ed.) |
C. Suspect Abandonment and Police Retrieval/Search of Personal Effects
General Rule: where a suspect discards, or vociferously denies a connection with personal effects, the court may base the subsequent police retrieval and/or search of the object on (a) an abandonment of an expectation of privacy, (b) the absence of a seizure of the person at the point of the suspect's discarding of his personal effects and/or (c) consent.
1. Abandonment No Expectation of Privacy No Search
a. Trash: California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) (defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash container placedon street for collection since accessible to "animals, children, scavengers, snoops and other(s)..."). See also Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960) (matter left in wastebasket in motel room); United States v. Hedrick, 922 F.2d 396 (7th Cir. 1991) (although garbage can located 18 to 20 feet from sidewalk, 20 feet from unattached garage and 50 feet from house was within "curtilage," no expectation of privacy within garbage cans because cans readily accessible to the public); People v. Huddleston, 38 Ill. App. 3d 277, 347 N.E.2d 76 (3d Dist. 1976) (when defendant placed garbage at curbside he relinquished reasonable expectation of privacy); People v. Dowery, 174 Ill. App. 3d 239, 528 N.E.2d 214 (1st Dist. 1988) (package placed in a garbage can at snack bar abandoned where defendant denied ownership thereof).
b. Items in vehicle: People v. Arnett, 217 Ill. App. 3d 626, 577 N.E.2d 773 (5th Dist. 1991) (where defendant left his car with doors unlocked near railroad tracks on a secluded gravel road, without license plates, license-applied-for sticker or owner's registration within, proper for police to assume car abandoned); People v. Jones, 38 Ill. 2d 427, 231 N.E.2d 580 (1967) (driver who jumped from car, ran to avoid capture and abandoned car and its contents). Compare People v. Lee, 226 Ill. App. 3d 1084, 590 N.E.2d 1000 (3d Dist. 1992) (defendant's disclaimer did not result in abandonment of privacy interest; defendant had standing despite denial to police where car was registered to defendant, and defendant had keys).
c. Luggage: People v. Wilcher, 145 Ill. App. 3d 309, 495 N.E.2d 1001 (1st Dist. 1986) (where defendant denied ownership of luggage after dog indicated presence of narcotics dropped upon police approach).
d. Dropped upon police approach: People v. Hoskins, 101 Ill. 2d 209, 461 N.E.2d 941 (1984) (when prostitution suspect ran from police and threw her purse away, which contained drugs, "the defendant did not retain, but rather gave up, any expectation of privacy in her purse and its contents." In addition, search was valid "search incident to arrest" and would have been subject to "inevitable discovery" during station-house inventory during her booking); People v. Keys, 375 Ill. App. 3d 459, 874 N.E.2d 577 (4th Dist. 2007) (After a report that four black men in a black vehicle were looking for two known drug users, an officer spotted one of the known drug users being sought driving with two black individuals in his back seat, one being the defendant. The driver voluntarily pulled over and all three exited the vehicle. The officer asked the driver/known drug user if his two companions had been looking for him earlier, to which the driver affirmatively replied. The officer asked for all of their names and dates of birth, but found no outstanding warrants for any of them. The officer asked for and...
To continue reading
Request your trial