559 P.3d 1220
Idaho2024Background
- Michael Pulizzi was convicted of felony possession of methamphetamine and destruction or concealment of evidence after police obtained incriminating evidence from warrantless searches of his trash left on the sidewalk outside his apartment.
- Over approximately five months, Twin Falls County detectives conducted seven warrantless "trash pulls" of his garbage, which was outside the curtilage of his home.
- The evidence from his trash led to a search warrant for his home, where more drugs and paraphernalia were found, and Pulizzi confessed to attempting to destroy further evidence.
- Pulizzi moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash due to local Twin Falls waste collection ordinances.
- The district court denied the suppression motion, finding no such privacy interest, and Pulizzi subsequently pled guilty while preserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the lower court’s denial of the motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Pulizzi's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable expectation of privacy in trash under city ordinance | The city’s waste collection ordinance (WCO) created an objectively reasonable privacy expectation in garbage left for collection | WCO does not create privacy protection; prior case law controls | Ordinance does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy |
| Reconsideration of Idaho precedent (Donato, McCall) | Court should reconsider prior rulings and find Article I, section 17 affords more privacy than the Fourth Amendment if trash is placed out as mandated | Precedent is sound, remains consistent with federal law, and should not be overruled | No basis to overrule Donato and McCall; precedent stands |
| Applicability of WCO to police searches | WCO restricts any collection to licensed collectors, so police seizure of trash was unlawful | WCO applies only to unlicensed, unauthorized collectors for monetary gain, not police officers fulfilling their duties | WCO does not apply to police officers; purpose is sanitation, not privacy protection |
| Impact of other states’ interpretations (e.g., Iowa) | Other courts (e.g., Iowa Supreme Court) found ordinances can create privacy interests in trash | Idaho precedent follows US Supreme Court (Greenwood)—no privacy interest; local sanitation ordinances do not create new rights | Idaho rejects other states’ broader privacy approach as inconsistent with Idaho law and precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) (holding no Fourth Amendment protection for garbage left for collection outside the curtilage)
- State v. Donato, 135 Idaho 469 (2001) (Idaho adopts Greenwood rule for state constitution)
- State v. McCall, 135 Idaho 885 (2001) (adopts same holding as Donato for curbside garbage and privacy)