© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
into the public sewer system.
The EPA inspectors urge that we adopt a per se rule that there is never a
reasonable expectation of privacy in wastewater. This we decline to do.
Judgments about reasonable expectations of privacy are very fact–
specific, and there may be fact situations where wastewater is entitled to
constitutional protection. See Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476
U.S. 227, 238 n. 5, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986) (reasonable
e.g., Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 617, 109 S.Ct.
1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (chemical analysis of urine sample is a
“search” for Fourth Amendment purposes; tested subject has a
e.g., California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 40-42, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 100
L.Ed.2d 30 (1988) ; United States v. Scott, 975 F.2d 927, 929 *64 (1st
Cir.1992) ; United States v. Wilkinson, 926 F.2d 22, 27 (1st Cir.1991).
The fact that Manhole 1 is on private property is relevant, but that fact
alone does not resolve the issue one way or the other. The contours of
the Fourth Amendment are not coterminous with property and trespass
in
holding
lagoon
s
entirely
on
private
propert
may be
stronge
r
to
Riverda
le that
y, that
support
is
Mills Corp., 337 F.Supp.2d at 255. This is too abstract an inquiry, at
either the first or the second prong. FN8 The proper question is whether
an officer on October 21, 1997, should have understood based on prior
of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 543, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943
(1967). That is surely too broad an articulation in light of the
requirements of the second prong.
at 40-42, 108 S.Ct. 1625; Scott, 975 F.2d at 929; Wilkinson, 926 F.2d
at 27; see also United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091, 1093, 1097 (11th
Cir.1995) (no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash in commercial
FN9. One state court held that there was not a reasonable
.
IV.
immuni
ty to
Pimpar
ed for
entry of
judgme
e and
Granz.
© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
into the public sewer system.
The EPA inspectors urge that we adopt a per se rule that there is never a
reasonable expectation of privacy in wastewater. This we decline to do.
Judgments about reasonable expectations of privacy are very fact–
specific, and there may be fact situations where wastewater is entitled to
constitutional protection. See Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476
U.S. 227, 238 n. 5, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986) (reasonable
e.g., Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 617, 109 S.Ct.
1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (chemical analysis of urine sample is a
“search” for Fourth Amendment purposes; tested subject has a
e.g., California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 40-42, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 100
L.Ed.2d 30 (1988) ; United States v. Scott, 975 F.2d 927, 929 *64 (1st
Cir.1992) ; United States v. Wilkinson, 926 F.2d 22, 27 (1st Cir.1991).
The fact that Manhole 1 is on private property is relevant, but that fact
alone does not resolve the issue one way or the other. The contours of
the Fourth Amendment are not coterminous with property and trespass
in
holding
lagoon
s
entirely
on
private
propert
may be
stronge
r
to
Riverda
le that
y, that
support
is
Mills Corp., 337 F.Supp.2d at 255. This is too abstract an inquiry, at
either the first or the second prong. FN8 The proper question is whether
an officer on October 21, 1997, should have understood based on prior
of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 543, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943
(1967). That is surely too broad an articulation in light of the
requirements of the second prong.
at 40-42, 108 S.Ct. 1625; Scott, 975 F.2d at 929; Wilkinson, 926 F.2d
at 27; see also United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091, 1093, 1097 (11th
Cir.1995) (no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash in commercial
FN9. One state court held that there was not a reasonable
.
IV.
immuni
ty to
Pimpar
ed for
entry of
judgme
e and
Granz.