Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Trash is Private Property in New Hampshire 82

Posted by michael from the take-out-the-papers-and-the-trash dept.
suwain_2 writes "As this article in the Nashua (New Hampshire) Telegraph discusses, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that trash set out on the sidewalk for collection is private property. In the case that led to this landmark decision, police searched through an area man's trash, finding traces of marijuana in his garbage. The New Hampshire Supreme Court declared yesterday that the police didn't have the right to go through his trash without a warrant. This is the opposite of what most states, and the US Supreme Court, have previously ruled. Live free or die indeed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trash is Private Property in New Hampshire More

Trash is Private Property in New Hampshire

Comments Filter:
  • I'm sorry. I don't see the techie, nerd, geek, IT, whatever connection here. Not a bit. At all. Remotely even hardly resembling maybe.
  • 1) The heck with shredders, buy a woodstove and feed it on paper. (This is also the best way to prevent identity theft.)
    2) Haul your own trash to the dump.
    3) Don't set out your trash can until you hear the truck coming down the street. Yeah, sure, the police are going to ooming screaming up in their squad car with the PA system blaring "Step away from that trash!" as the garbagemen attempt to empty it...
    • The garbagemen are often the agents of law enforcement, seperating a suspect's garbage for the police. This prevents the paranoid drug dealers from realizing they are being watched and cl $ng out their place of business.
    • What I do is I shred EVERYTHING. I then mix it in with my trash. I suppose I should be the good environmentalist and recycle it but I've been too lazy. I recycle just about everything else.

      So I got shredded junk mail, personal mail, bills, and often subversive literature.

      I doubt the police are going through my trash but the image of them trying to piece together misc. shredded paper mixed in with rotting fruits and vegies etc. is amusing.

      When I tell people this they call me paranoid and say I should seek

  • What's Next? (Score:4, Funny)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @05:06PM (#7097774) Homepage Journal

    I can just see my private property trash joining together with all the other private property trash down at the landfill and declaring themselves a commune.

    Either that, or else I'll be sued by someone whose private property trash was injured in a scuffle with my private property trash in the back of dumpster somewhere.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @05:11PM (#7097814)
    New Hampshire state legislators propose changing the state motto to "Live free... or don't!"

  • What does it mean for dumpster divers (Score:3, Funny)

    by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @05:17PM (#7097882) Journal
    Man...I know of people who have found some way cool stuff in dumpsters. TVs, computers, furniture, other office equipment, etc. Does that mean you can get arrested now for divin' if you're in NH? Not cool.

    Imagine the irony of ironies though...what if you were divin', a cop catches ya, finds marijuana, but it's from the dumpster. Oh the humanity...

  • correct decision (Score:3, Informative)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <`dh003i' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @05:22PM (#7097924) Homepage Journal
    Anything on property owned by you is private property; if it is concealed (that is, not visible by plain sight) the police should need a warrant to search it. The minute your trash leaves your yard, it is no longer your property, but rather the property of the trash-company (that is the agreement between you and your trash company). How it is treated then depends upon your contract with the trash company.

    • Re:correct decision (Score:4, Informative)

      by sweetooth ( 21075 ) * on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @05:27PM (#7097987) Homepage
      The curb isn't your private property. Hence police have been able to go through trash for ages.

      • Re:correct decision (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dh003i ( 203189 )
        that point is good enough, and I hadn't considered that the trash was on the curb (I assumed it was on his driveway, as is my trash on mine). However, when you consider that all public property is the result of theft from millions of individuals through the systematic enslavement of the tax-payer, the "street" (at least the part of it by his house) in legitimacy belongs to the house-owner, as the street is only paid for by stealing from him.
        • Well technically yes, we all own public land. Hence the public term. Of course that means that anyone can go on it and do what they want within the law. So while you surely in some sense own your curb, or easment (we have a lot of places here with easments and no real curbs) really, you have no control over it. One other thing to consider is that many if not most garbage companies won't collect your garbage if it isn't in the public area as collecting it from your private property can be considered theft.
          • is that there is no such thing as "public property"; it is an oxymoron. To speak of someone's property implies they own it, have rights over it, can do with it as they please (so long as they don't use it to initiate violence against someone), can exchange it, and acquired it rightfully.

            Since the public (all tax-paying individuals) has no control over public property, and very limited use thereof, the property cannot be said to be owned by tax-paying individuals, as a corporation is owned by its shareholde
            • please explain how you think 250 million people could live meaningful lives without some form of state. Without a legal system and enforcement mechanisms protecting private property rights then *nobody* would be able to own any property. That's not freedom - it's the very opposite of freedom.

              And the analogy with shareholders doesn't work. I own a few thousand shares in IBM. Does that give me control of IBM's headquarters? Of course the answer is that it gives me the same kind of control of IBM's headquarte
              • It is perfectly possible that we could live meaningful -- indeed, BETTER -- lives without a State. Indeed, the past century could not have been worse if there was absolute anarchy; for there would not have been the holocaust, nor would there have been the dropping of two H-bombs on Japanese cities. By the way, appealing to the "necessity" of government does not justify it (the ends do not justify the means); it does not justify the mass-enslavement, mass-theft, and mass-murder that are both a necessary cons
                • point me to the bit where he explains how private court systems can enforce tort actions.
                  • I gave you the necessary reference in Rothbard's section on the public sector:

                    How, then, would the courts operate in the libertarian society? In particular, how could they enforce their decisions? In all their operations, furthermore, they must observe the critical libertarian rule that no physical force may be used against anyone who has not been convicted as a criminal--otherwise, the users of such force, whether police or courts, would be themselves liable to be convicted as aggressors if it turned out

                    • irrelevant. Look up the meaning of "tort" and try again.
                    • The particulars of the case are irrelevant to how the systems would work. Tort:

                      Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought.

                      Unless you could make a reasonable argument that the tort was initiation of aggression against others, it would not be punishable. For example, a car accident that's your fault; you would still be liable for the damages against the other pers
                    • The problem is that the ultra-libertarian framework does not encompass most tort actions, and of course you concede this when you say "will not be punishable".

                      You might want to consider where, exactly, it leaves those precious private property rights if you can't defend those rights against the non-aggressive (but still tortious) acts of others.

                      What if, for example, my negligence damages your property through fire, flood, pollution, stampeding animals? Don't you think this is a teensy weensy problem? Isn'
                    • Rothbard does discuss tort, though not in the section I linked to. He discusses tort in the next chapter: Conservation, Ecology, and Growth [mises.org].

                      To take a specific example, Rothbard considers the pollution in the 1800's by smog-factories to be a tort against the property of farmers and other land-owners, whose property was defiled by the smog from the smoke-stacks. He emphasizes that companies should be completely liable for any damage they may do to other individuals property through pollution, and may be for

                    • but how can purely private courts enforce tort actions at all? If my oil tanker dumps a million gallons of oil on your beach, how will I be *forced* to do anything?
                    • Rothbard discusses enforcement of the court's decisions in the other chapter I mentioned, The Public Sector [mises.org].

                      When the court reaches a decision, the private police company with which the court has a contract (or the court's marshalls) enforce the decision.

                      If the person ruled against disagrees, he can take the case to his own court.

                      If the two courts disagree on liability, then they would have to agree upon another court to function as an appeals court, which would have the final say. In this way, every cour
                    • but what if the courts don't agree?
                      you say they would "have to agree upon another court", but what if they don't?

                      you will inevitably end up with violent coercion, where the richer and more powerful party will crush the other. Are you really happier with this than a democratically accountable State having the monopoly on violence?
                    • but what if the courts don't agree? you say they would "have to agree upon another court", but what if they don't? you will inevitably end up with violent coercion, where the richer and more powerful party will crush the other. Are you really happier with this than a democratically accountable State having the monopoly on violence?

                      Rothbard anticipated such objections, and adequately answered them. However, for the moment, let us assume that in such a world, all chaos breaks out. So what? With the world-wa

    • The problem with that logic is that most people put their trash on the "devil's strip", the piece of land which exists between the sidewalk and the road (I don't know why it's called that) or the road itself. Most municipalities ordinances declare that the sidewalk and devil's strip are the property of the municipality, even though the person whose property ajoins it is responsible for its care in many cases. (Cutting the grass, shoveling snow, etc.) In some areas there is a direct buffer between the roa
      • > Most municipalities ordinances declare that the
        > sidewalk and devil's strip are the property of the
        > municipality, even though the person whose
        > property ajoins it is responsible for its care in
        > many cases.

        No. In most jurisdictions the city has an easement on the sidewalk, the boulevard, and your half of the street, but you still "own" it.
    • The thing is, in all the other states where trash is NOT private property, the court still seems to think that what is IN your trash on the curb has something to do with you.

      If I didn't like someone very much, all I'd have to do is stuff some pot into his trash on the curb. He gets blamed and arrested.

      --jeff
  • If someone tosses their empty Jolt Cola can in my trashcan while it's sitting on the lawn to be picked up, is that tresspassing?

    This is just dumb. Who has an expectation of privacy with their trash?!
    • If someone tosses their empty Jolt Cola can in my trashcan while it's sitting on the lawn to be picked up, is that tresspassing?

      Probably not, if it's on the public easement.

      This is just dumb. Who has an expectation of privacy with their trash?!

      People in New Hampshire, now.

      -Isaac

    • Who has an expectation of privacy with their trash?!

      Funny enough, the government does. Here in Portland, Oregon, US:

      In March of 2002, police officers in Portland went through the garbage of a fellow officer without her permission looking for "evidence" that she was using drugs (an investigation that looks more to me like an attempt to punish and smear the officer in question, because she had won a sexual harassment suit against the department). Among the garbage/evidence was a bloody tampon that the cop
    • From some squirle (I think) to Slappy Squirl:

      "Excuse Me! That's MY garbage receptical. I'm sure you have a garbage receptical of your own!"

      I wish that people would put their trash in my can instead of leaving it on my lawn.

  • Oregon weekly sticks it to the cops (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dietz ( 553239 ) on Tuesday September 30, 2003 @05:47PM (#7098206)
    In Oregon, after a case where the cops went through a person's trash [wweek.com] to get evidence (against one of their own officers, in fact), one of the local weeklies [wweek.com] decided to do a little protest.

    They went through the trash [wweek.com] of the police chief, they mayor (who supported the right for cops to go through trash), and the district attorney. They then held meetings with each of these people, asking how they felt about this privacy violation. The police chief actually threw them out of his office. Then they reported on these meetings and printed a list of every item they found in the trash bins.

    Needless to say, the "victims" were pissed. The mayor held a press conference, claiming she was going to sue [wweek.com] Wilamette Week for, uhhm, well, she never said what exactly. She never did sue.

    It was pretty hilarious.
    • Thanks for pointing this one out. I vaguely remembered this story (read it in the paper when it was published) but not the specifics. Pretty good capsule summary of what statists believe :)

      a) We get to invent the rules
      b) The more rules, the better
      c) except for us

      wrt point b), notice that many public oafficials like to brag about how many new laws they passed or implemented (depending on whether they're in the stick-em-up or the stick-it-to-ya part of the political spectrum). This is something that they *o
    • People could probably read the article to find this out but.....

      Basically, what the legal argument was is that once you put your trash out on the curb it becomes public property and thus the police do not need a search warrent to look through it because EVERYONE supposidely has the right to go through it. (I wonder if that makes dumpster diving legal in Oregon?)

      This has been used in numerous cases, but it became more public when it was used against a fellow police officer. What was probably going on with

  • Well, it's nice to see that there is some respect for privacy/freedom still in the US.

    Certainly I could have an arrangement with the garbage company which would come onto my property to obtain the trash, and that would have it remain my property until mixed with the other trash, but what's to keep the police from examining the trash and finding my dna in the saliva on a reefer?
  • They covered this topic years ago on the reference for legal opinions,"Hill Street Blues."

    On the show the judge said it was OK if the trash was in the "scoop" of the garbage truck, at which point it was considered public property, but the cops couldn't touch it before it was mixed with everyone else's trash.

    I wonder if the writers were inspired by a real-world legal ruling.


  • Justice John Broderick dissented, citing a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that it was unreasonable for people to expect their trash to remain private, given that "plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public."

    In that decision - which also was split - a majority of judges on the nation's highest court concluded "the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of cri

    • >>plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public.

      Would that judge also push the analogy so as to say that a non-secured overflooded mailbox would hence be public, because it lays at the boudary of the public street and accessible to whoever put his hand in ? That sounds pretty shallow...

      There is something funny, though, in the governments schizophrenia upon property -- here in France, if
    • It would also be helpful to get to know your neighbors better and look out for each other. Not neccessarily Neighborhood Watch, but just talking to each other. Let them know if there is a weirdo or the police looking through your windows or going through your trash etc.

      But then now that we have the "USA PATRIOT ACT" it is now illegal to even talk about the police searching yourself if you catch them.
  • RUBBISH!
    Portland's top brass said it was OK to swipe your garbage--so we grabbed theirs.
    by CHRIS LYDGATE AND NICK BUDNICK

    [...] Back in March, the police swiped the trash of fellow officer Gina Hoesly. They didn't ask permission. They didn't ask for a search warrant. They just grabbed it. [...]

    The news left a lot of Portlanders--including us--scratching our heads. Aren't there rules about this sort of thing? Aren't citizens protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment?

    [...] Af
  • The Star Chamber [imdb.com].

    Judge Stephen Hardin finds himself distraught when he's forced to dismiss the charges against an obviously guilty criminal due to a legal technicality.

    The technicality in question was exactly that. The criminal's garbage was searched after being loaded on a garbage truck. But it was still separate from the rest of garbage, and thus was his private property. See, the truck man didn't have a chance to pull a lever when the police stopped him. If he pulled that lever, the criminal's garbag

  • So how does this affect dumpster diving [kuro5hin.org]? I know that I've gotten some nice computers out of the trash, as well as other semi-working electronics. I don't understand why someone would throw out a computer with a blown power supply instead of asking their friendly neighborhood geek what the problem is.

    Of course, finding a 2 or 3 generation old computer was more useful before you could get a NAT router for under $50. "Back in my day, we had to install Linux on the drive to build a router... and we liked it
  • But what kind of self-respecting pot smoker is going to throw out part of his stash!

    Kids today...
  • Must we make a law for everything just so people can get a warm fuzzy? Take some responsibilty for your actions, exercise a degree of intelligence and dispose of sensitive information or incriminating evidence correctly. It is not the place of a law to protect criminals from their own stupidity.

    Why should we have an expectation for privacy in our trash (once it is placed for collection) ?

    Heck the article in Willamette Week Online just tells a story of some incredibly stupid public officials. They shoul
  • I personally don't like this. I think that trash, and recycling too, once it is sent to the curb, should be thought of public property. Anyone can claim it if they want. I don't mind people knowing what I throw away. If it is something sensitive then I will make it unsensitive or keep it. Plus rulings like this make it harder to turn "one man's trash into another's treasure."
    • I personally don't like this. I think that trash, and recycling too, once it is sent to the curb, should be thought of public property.

      What's to stop competing recycling companies from collecting each others' trash then, when they don't have the Town's contract?

      Plus rulings like this make it harder to turn "one man's trash into another's treasure."

      I'm not going to press charges if you pick up the busted old couch on the curb. We can assume this to be the reasonable social norm. This ruling is to pr
      • Illegal dumping would be tresspassing or vandalism while trash burning is pollution related. And most people don't mind if someone else picks up their trash. They just don't want it themselves. The rest can be dealt with by things like shreading or keeping. You do keep reciepts don't you.
  • Well if trash is private property, then Bill Gates has a problem (Bill gates used code trown away by company's to understand how operating systems and alike worked)
    Maybe some company *cough* SCO *cough* could sue him for stealing private property
  • There are good reasons why you might want to search a person's trash. If they have put recyclables in with stuff going for landfill, then they deserve to be punished, and punished hard, for pollution. {Murder: victim is one person. Treason: victim is a whole nation. Pollution: victim is an entire planet.} Everyone who puts recyclable goods in for landfill is stealing from the local council, twice over: firstly in the cost of landfilling the goods, and secondly in the money not paid by the scrap mer

  • Was the garbage networked or something? That's the only reason I can think of why this would be in YRO....

  • Interesting how society makes a law based on current events, and later reverses them based on newer, current events. I suppose ignorance is an acceptable excuse? e.g. First, going through someone's trash - rotten apple cores, bathroom tissues, empty Schlitz cans - is legal. Later, going through someone's trash - dozens of credit card offers with reply envelopes, banks tatements with SSNs, liberal newsletters, CD with 800MB of hidden cache on it - is illegal. Adds merit to the idea that perhaps law makers
  • If trash is public property in most states, and freely searchable without a warrant, if they search someone's trash and they find illegal materials (drugs or whatever) in there, technically that illegal material would no longer belong to whoever put it there, right? So you can't bust someone for possessing it if it is no longer theirs.

    Say a heroin addict decides they want to kick the habit so they throw out all of their heroin and paraphanalia. The cops search their garbage and find it all. Too bad it does
    • I'm sorry, but your argument is completely nonsensical. That is simply not how the law works.

      The law makes it illegal to possess controlled substances like heroin. If you possessed the substance, you can be charged with a crime. The time frame during which you possessed the substance can be in the past so long as it is not so long ago that any charges would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

      The distinction between public and private property in this context is the need for the police t

      • hey works for me.
        I really was just curious about how such a situation would work out. I'm (obviously) not a lawyer.

        So thanks for the response and clarification- I appreciate it.
      • On the other hand, if they hauled you in and brought you to trial, I think many juries would conclude that the possibility that someone else placed it there constitutes a reasonable doubt. However, if they search your house afterwards, and you have a huge stash, well, sucks to be you.
        • As a practical matter, when the police search your trash like this, they set up a surveillance team to watch you take the trash to the curb and videotape it. They then immediately seize the trash and search it before anyone else has had the opportunity to tamper with the contents. So much for reasonable doubt.
    • Too risky; dispose of your illegal materials in your NEIGHBOR'S trash.

Slashdot Top Deals

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_

Close