State v. Hempele

Supreme Court of New Jersey
576 A.2d 793, 120 N.J. 182 (1990)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, a person retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of opaque garbage bags left at the curb for collection. Therefore, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant based on probable cause before searching such garbage.

Facts:

In the Hempele case, a confidential source informed state police that Conrad and Sharon Hempele were distributing drugs from their home.
Six months after the tip, a state trooper seized white plastic trash bags from a garbage can in front of the Hempeles' row house.
Two weeks later, the trooper again seized the garbage bags from the same location.
On both occasions, the trooper took the bags and searched their contents without a warrant, discovering traces of marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine.
In the separate Pasanen case, police received tips about drug activity at James J. Pasanen's home.
Police observed individuals with prior drug convictions frequenting the house.
On seven separate occasions, police conducted warrantless seizures and searches of gray plastic garbage bags Pasanen had placed near the street.
These searches revealed drug paraphernalia and traces of illegal drugs.

Procedural Posture:

In the Hempele case, the trial court granted the defendants' motion to suppress evidence found in the warrantless garbage searches.
In the Pasanen case, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence from similar warrantless garbage searches.
The Appellate Division consolidated the appeals, affirming the suppression order in Hempele and affirming the denial of suppression in Pasanen, holding that a standard of 'reasonable suspicion' was required for such searches.
The State was granted leave to appeal in Hempele, and Pasanen's petition for certification was granted, bringing both cases before the Supreme Court of New Jersey for a final determination.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the warrantless search of opaque garbage bags left on a curb for collection violate Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution?

Opinions:

Majority - Clifford, J.

Yes, the warrantless search of opaque garbage bags left on a curb for collection violates Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. Unlike the Fourth Amendment, the New Jersey Constitution provides greater protection against unreasonable searches, requiring police to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to search the contents of garbage bags. The court reasoned that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage because it contains intimate details of their personal lives. Opaque garbage bags are closed containers that conceal their contents from plain view, similar to a suitcase or package, and are thus constitutionally protected. The court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in California v. Greenwood, arguing that the possibility of intrusion by animals or snoops does not eliminate a person's privacy interest against systematic police inspection, and that entrusting bags to a collector for disposal is not a surrender of all privacy in their contents.

Dissenting - Garibaldi, J.

No, the warrantless search of garbage bags left on a curb does not violate the New Jersey Constitution. There is no sound policy reason to depart from the federal standard established in California v. Greenwood, which held that society does not accept as reasonable an expectation of privacy in discarded trash. By placing garbage on the curb for collection, an individual abandons it and relinquishes any reasonable expectation of privacy, as it is common knowledge that trash is readily accessible to the public, animals, and scavengers. Creating a different rule for New Jersey confuses the public and breeds distrust in a legal system where federal and state officers operating in the same location would be bound by different constitutional standards.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - O'Hern, J.

No, the warrantless search should not be found to violate the New Jersey Constitution, primarily for reasons of federalism. While the majority's privacy analysis is persuasive, departing from the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of nearly identical constitutional language is unwarranted in this case and risks diminishing the moral authority of the nation's highest court. The Fourth Amendment should not mean one thing in New Jersey and another in a neighboring state. A more measured approach, like the Appellate Division's requirement of reasonable suspicion, would have adequately balanced state and federal interests without creating a significant split in constitutional doctrine.

Analysis:

This decision establishes New Jersey as a prominent state providing greater privacy protections under its own constitution than those afforded by the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment. By rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent in California v. Greenwood, the court affirmed its authority to independently interpret the state constitution. This ruling creates a significant practical divergence, where evidence from a warrantless garbage search may be admissible in federal court but is suppressed in New Jersey state court. The case solidifies the 'closed container' doctrine in New Jersey and will influence future state-level decisions regarding privacy in other discarded items or publicly accessible areas.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Hempele (1990)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"