Paul Mast v. State of Indiana (6/1/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure; Constitutional Law]
Baker, Judge
Appellant-defendant Paul M. Mast brings this interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Specifically, Mast argues that the police conducted an improper warrantless search of a dumpster containing garbage that had been located on his property, that the State improperly solicited and utilized the assistance of a private agent to effect the search, and that the probable cause affidavit for a search warrant that was ultimately issued was “deficient in its requirement for particularization of elements as to specific individuals or specific properties.” Concluding that the trial court properly denied Mast’s motion to suppress, we affirm.The court here equated this search with a "garbage on the curb" situation, even though the dumpster was on Mast's property:
Thus, the garbage service employee’s entry onto the property was made in accordance with the contracted-for service.The court also found that there was probable cause for the search warrant. "The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. FRIEDLANDER, J., and BAILEY, J., concur."
Similarly, we find Officer McFarland’s presence in the cab of the dump truck as it backed onto the property to the dumpster of no consequence. As indicated in the FACTS, Officer McFarland never left the truck, and he never set foot onto Mast’s property. Rather, the record shows that Officer McFarland accompanied the dump truck driver on several scheduled stops, including the pick up from the dumpster that was on the Masts’ property. Again, as the Moran, court observed, the police officer in that case did nothing that the collection agency was not authorized to do. We have the same circumstances here, and, as a result, Mast’s argument that Officer McFarland’s presence in the truck constituted a trespass onto the property in violation of Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution must fail. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Mast’s motion to suppress on this basis.
[Note: If the facts sound familiar, see Litchfield v. State, discussed in this entry from mid-May.]
Forty-One Associates, LLC v. Bluefield Associates [The case was not correctly linked and hence is unavailable to the reader]
Consolidated Systems, Inc. v. Department of Local Government Finance (5/28/04 IndTaxCt - Not for Publication) [Enterprise Zone Inventory Credit]
Mitchel & Scott Machine Co., Inc. v. Department of Local Government Finance (5/28/04 IndTaxCt - Not for Publication) [Real Property Assessment]
"The issue before this Court is whether Mitchel & Scott’s improvement is entitled to additional obsolescence depreciation."
Quality Stores v. Department of Local Government Finance (5/28/04 IndTaxCt - Not for Publication) [Real Property Assessment]
Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. Washington Township (Marion County) Assessor (5/28/04 IndTaxCt - Not for Publication) [Real Property Assessment]
Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. Washington Township (Marion County) Assessor (5/28/04 IndTaxCt - Not for Publication) [Real Property Assessment]
Posted by Marcia Oddi at June 1, 2004 02:02 PM