FSM 3 Intrm. 368-370

FSM SUPREME COURT

TRIAL DIVISION (Pon.)

Cite as FSM v. Rodriquez,

3 FSM Intrm. 368 (Pon. 1988)

[3 FSM Intrm. 368]

FEDERATED STATES OFMICRONESIA,

Plaintiff,

LIHNO RODRIQUEZ, PAULUS RODRIQUEZ

and LUCY RODRIQUEZ,

Defendants.

CRIM. ACTION NO. 1988-510

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Before Edward C. King

Chief Justice

FSM Supreme Court

May 25, 1988

[3 FSM Intrm. 369]

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Randy Boyer

Pohnpei State Attorney

Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941

For the Defendant: John Brackett

(Lihno Rodriquez) Attorney at Law

Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941

For the Defendants: Joseph Phillip

(Paulus Rodriquez Public Defender

and Lucy Rodriquez) Pohnpei State 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Criminal Law and Procedure-Search and Seizure

Even on public premises a person may retain an expectation of privacy, but where a person residing on public land makes no effort to preserve the privacy of marijuana plants and seedings, entry of police on the premises and seizure of contraband that is plainly visible from outside the residence is not an unconstitutional search and seizure. FSM v. Rodriquez, 3 FSM Intrm. 368, 370 (Pon. 1988).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

EDWARD C. KING, Chief Justice:

Defendants' motion to suppress challenges the legality of the actions of Pohnpei state police officers and agents of the United State Drug Enforcement Agency in entering public land on which the defendants were residing, and subsequently observing and seizing plants and seedlings alleged to be marijuana. The evidence establishes that the land on which these events occurred was publicly owned land.

Defendant Lihno Rodriquez wrote to Trust Territory authorities in 1973 seeking the opportunity to acquire the land, but received no response. Since 1973 he cultivated the land and has been growing crops there. He constructed a sleeping hut on the land and he and family members frequently stay on the land three or four nights at a stretch.

Regardless of the attempt by Lihno Rodriquez to claim the land, the land remains public. State authorities are entitled to enter and make a reasonable inspection of public land without a search warrant. Even on public premises,

[3 FSM Intrm. 370]

however, an individual may retain a legitimate expectation of privacy as to certain items and effects, e.g., those items on his person or in closed containers. FSM v. Tipen, 1 FSM Intrm. 79, 86 (Pon. 1982). An individual's home, even one located on public land, qualifies for constitutional protection against warrantless searches. Cf. FSM v. George, 1 FSM Intrm. 449, 461 (Kos. 1984).

Here, however, there is no showing of an effort to preserve the privacy of any of the seized items. The plants outside were in open view. Even the seedlings inside the open sleeping hut were plainly visible from outside.

Finding no constitutional violation, the Court denies the motion to suppress.

* * * *


	FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION (Pon.) *Cite as FSM v. Rodriquez,* 3 FSM Intrm. 368 (Pon. 1988) [3 FSM Intrm. 368] FEDERATED STATES OFMICRONESIA, Plaintiff, v. LIHNO RODRIQUEZ, PAULUS RODRIQUEZ and LUCY RODRIQUEZ, *Defendants.* CRIM. ACTION NO. 1988-510 MEMORANDUM DECISION Before Edward C. King Chief Justice FSM Supreme Court May 25, 1988 [3 FSM Intrm. 369] APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: Randy Boyer Pohnpei State Attorney Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941 For the Defendant: John Brackett (Lihno Rodriquez) Attorney at Law Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941 For the Defendants: Joseph Phillip (Paulus Rodriquez Public Defender and Lucy Rodriquez) Pohnpei State 96941 * * * * HEADNOTES Criminal Law and Procedure-Search and Seizure Even on public premises a person may retain an expectation of privacy, but where a person residing on public land makes no effort to preserve the privacy of marijuana plants and seedings, entry of police on the premises and seizure of contraband that is plainly visible from outside the residence is not an unconstitutional search and seizure. FSM v. Rodriquez, 3 FSM Intrm. 368, 370 (Pon. 1988). * * * * COURT'S OPINION EDWARD C. KING, Chief Justice: Defendants' motion to suppress challenges the legality of the actions of Pohnpei state police officers and agents of the United State Drug Enforcement Agency in entering public land on which the defendants were residing, and subsequently observing and seizing plants and seedlings alleged to be marijuana. The evidence establishes that the land on which these events occurred was publicly owned land. Defendant Lihno Rodriquez wrote to Trust Territory authorities in 1973 seeking the opportunity to acquire the land, but received no response. Since 1973 he cultivated the land and has been growing crops there. He constructed a sleeping hut on the land and he and family members frequently stay on the land three or four nights at a stretch. Regardless of the attempt by Lihno Rodriquez to claim the land, the land remains public. State authorities are entitled to enter and make a reasonable inspection of public land without a search warrant. Even on public premises, [3 FSM Intrm. 370] however, an individual may retain a legitimate expectation of privacy as to certain items and effects, e.g., those items on his person or in closed containers. FSM v. Tipen, 1 FSM Intrm. 79, 86 (Pon. 1982). An individual's home, even one located on public land, qualifies for constitutional protection against warrantless searches. Cf. FSM v. George, 1 FSM Intrm. 449, 461 (Kos. 1984). Here, however, there is no showing of an effort to preserve the privacy of any of the seized items. The plants outside were in open view. Even the seedlings inside the open sleeping hut were plainly visible from outside. Finding no constitutional violation, the Court denies the motion to suppress. * * * *