Trash is Private Property in New Hampshire

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."

Comments

What's Next?

[4of12]

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...

[El]

New Hampshire state legislators propose changing the state motto to "Live free... or don't!"

What does it mean for dumpster divers

[chia_monkey]

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...

Re:What does it mean for dumpster divers

[John Hasler]

Until the New Hampshire Supreme Court reverses itself or New Hampshire amends its constitution. There is no court with jurisdiction for the cops to appeal to.

correct decision

[dh003i]

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

[sweetooth]

The curb isn't your private property. Hence police have been able to go through trash for ages.

Re:correct decision

[dh003i]

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.

Oregon weekly sticks it to the cops

[dietz]

In Oregon, after a case where the cops went through a person's trash to get evidence (against one of their own officers, in fact), one of the local weeklies decided to do a little protest.

They went through the trash 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 Wilamette Week for, uhhm, well, she never said what exactly. She never did sue.

It was pretty hilarious.

Gander Sauce, now on special ...

[timothy]

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 *ought* to shamefacedly cough their way out of answering, not brag about.

If we called them all "rule inventors" and "tattletale," I think the proper perspective would be easier to maintain. Words like "lawmaker" and "executive" sound far too important for these arrogant brats.

What, me venty?

timothy

That's all well and good...

[The Munger]

But what kind of self-respecting pot smoker is going to throw out part of his stash!

Kids today...

actually, what I'm saying

[dh003i]

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 shareholders. If anything, public property is a burden on us, adding to our enslavement, because we are forced to pay taxes on it, pay taxes to support it, and take care of it, despite the fact that we have no control over it.

In reality, what we improperly call "public property" is really the property of the politicians and beurocrats who decide how it can be used, property which they stole from the taxpayers they have systematically enslaved. Yes, taxes are slavery (forcing individuals to work 10-37.5% of the year without compensation is slavery, as is forcing them to work for 10-37.5% less than what they would otherwise work for).

Hence, all questions of what is proper on public property are meaningless, for it is asking the question "what is the right thing to do with stolen property". The only answer can be to return it to it's owners (if you know who they are), or allow it to be homesteaded by claimees. Talk of whether or not it is ok for police to search public property pre-supposes that the theft of the property which we call "public" is justified, when in fact it is not.

Re:actually, what I'm saying

[dh003i]

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 that the person they had used force against was innocent of crime. In contrast to statist systems, no policeman or judge could be granted special immunity to use coercion beyond what anyone else in society could use.

Let us now take the case we mentioned before. Mr. Jones is robbed, his hired detective agency decides that one Brown committed the crime, and Brown refuses to concede his guilt. What then? In the first place, we must recognize that there is at present no overall world court or world government enforcing its decrees; yet while we live in a state of "international anarchy" there is little or no problem in disputes between private citizens of two countries. Suppose that right now, for example, a citizen of Uruguay claims that he has been swindled by a citizen of Argentina. Which court does he go to? He goes to his own, i.e., the victim's or the plaintiff's court. The case proceeds in the Uruguayan court, and its decision is honored by the Argentinian court. The same is true if an American feels he has been swindled by a Canadian, and so on. In Europe after the Roman Empire, when German tribes lived side by side and in the same areas, if a Visigoth felt that he had been injured by a Frank, he took the case to his own court, and the decision was generally accepted by the Franks. Going to the plaintiff's court is the rational libertarian procedure as well, since the victim or plaintiff is the one who is aggrieved, and who naturally takes the case to his own court. So, in our case, Jones would go to the Prudential Court Company to charge Brown with theft.

It is possible, of course, that Brown is also a client of the Prudential Court, in which case there is no problem. The Prudential's decision covers both parties, and becomes binding. But one important stipulation is that no coercive subpoena power can be used against Brown, because he must be considered innocent until he is convicted. But Brown would be served with a voluntary subpoena, a notice that he is being tried on such and such a charge and inviting him or his legal representative to appear. If he does not appear, then he will be tried in absentia, and this will obviously be less favorable for Brown since his side of the case will not be pleaded in court. If Brown is declared guilty, then the court and its marshals will employ force to seize Brown and exact whatever punishment is decided upon--a punishment which obviously will focus first on restitution to the victim.