maskedwoman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,614
- Reaction score
- 7,845
That is 100% logical and makes complete sense to me. However, I keep being slapped by the fact that the law is clearly not always logical, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out that it can't be used against anyone if it's in that scurtilege zone. smjAs long as the neighbors' bin is at the curb, there is no expectation of privacy. But that goes double for BK's trash at his neighbor's curb. Which is where I believe the father's DNA was retrieved.
Now if the neighbor's trash were not yet to the curb, but was still within the neighbor's scurtilege (a new term to me which seems to mean on the neighbor's property as opposed to the city-owned strip along roadside (including the curb)), then anything found in it could not be used against the neighbor.
IANAL but I expect the prosecution's argument in such an event would be that although the evidence recovered from the bin on the neighbor's property could not be used against the neighbor, it should still admissible against BK. After all, BK has no expectation of privacy in litter he basically dumped on the next-door property.
Other posters--more dedicated than I--have been reading PA case law and perhaps they will correct my assumptions here.
In CA, where I live, and in FL, where I grew up, there is a strip of land, between your house and the road, that belongs to the public. The homeowner must maintain it, but has few rights as to its use, including no expectation of privacy. Our city water co. installed a large housing for their equipment on the strip directly in front of my house, chose the location and color without consulting us. Anyone can park in that strip along the road (as long as they don't block my driveway), but let a weed pop up there and I get a $100/hr. bill from the City.