Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. SCHUTTER

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided March 28, 2011No. 10SA304Published

1DissentJustice Eid

Because the cell phone in this case was abandoned by the defendant, he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in its contents. See People v. Morrison, 583 P.2d 924, 926, 196 Colo. 319, 322 (1978) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in abandoned property). I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion affirming the trial court's suppression order.

The defendant left the cell phone in a public restroom of a convenience store. When he could not get back into the restroom because it was locked, he spoke to the store clerk. The clerk informed him that he was too busy at the time…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. New York v. BurgerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. People v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1978
  3. United States v. Lonnie Maurice HillCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API