FSM 3 Intrm. 385-386

FSM SUPREME COURT

TRIAL DIVISION (Pon.)

Cite as Rodriquez v. FSM,

3 FSM Intrm. 385 (Pon. 1988)

[3 FSM Intrm. 385]

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

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 Defendant: Joseph Phillip

(Paulus Rodriquez Public Defender

Lucy Rodriquez) State of Pohnpei

Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Constitutional Law - Search and Seizure

An individual's home, even one located on public land, qualifies for constitutional protection against warrantless searches. FSM v. Rodriquez, 3 FSM Intrm. 385, 386 (Pon. 1988).

[3 FSM Intrm. 386]

Constitutional Law - Search and Warrant

The Protection in article VI, section 5 of the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia against unreasonable search and seizure is based upon the comparable provision in the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. FSM v. Rodriquez, 3 FSM Intrm. 385, 386 (Pon. 1988).

Constitutional Law - Search and Warrant

Although an individual acting without state authorization hats constructed a sleeping hut and has planted crops on state-owned public land, state police officers may nevertheless enter the land without a search warrant to make reasonable inspections of it and may observe and seize illegally possessed plants in open view and plainly visible from outside the sleeping hut. FSM v. Rodriquez, 3 FSM Intrm. 385, 386 (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 landremains public. State authorities are entitled to enter and make at reasonableinspection of public land without a search warrant. Even on public premises, 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 Rodriquez v. FSM, 3 FSM Intrm. 385 (Pon. 1988) [3 FSM Intrm. 385] 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 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 Defendant: Joseph Phillip (Paulus Rodriquez Public Defender Lucy Rodriquez) State of Pohnpei Kolonia, Pohnpei 96941 * * * * HEADNOTES Constitutional Law - Search and Seizure An individual's home, even one located on public land, qualifies for constitutional protection against warrantless searches. FSM v. Rodriquez, 3 FSM Intrm. 385, 386 (Pon. 1988). [3 FSM Intrm. 386] Constitutional Law - Search and Warrant The Protection in article VI, section 5 of the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia against unreasonable search and seizure is based upon the comparable provision in the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. FSM v. Rodriquez, 3 FSM Intrm. 385, 386 (Pon. 1988). Constitutional Law - Search and Warrant Although an individual acting without state authorization hats constructed a sleeping hut and has planted crops on state-owned public land, state police officers may nevertheless enter the land without a search warrant to make reasonable inspections of it and may observe and seize illegally possessed plants in open view and plainly visible from outside the sleeping hut. FSM v. Rodriquez, 3 FSM Intrm. 385, 386 (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 landremains public. State authorities are entitled to enter and make at reasonableinspection of public land without a search warrant. Even on public premises, 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. * * * *