California v. Krivda 8212 651

• Decision Date: 24 October 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71,71
• Citation: 409 U.S. 33,34 L.Ed.2d 45,93 S.Ct. 32
• Parties: CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. Judith KRIVDA and Roger T. Minor. —651
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

409 U.S. 33

93 S.Ct. 32

34 L.Ed.2d 45

CALIFORNIA, Petitioner,

v Judith KRIVDA and Roger T. Minor.

No. 71—651.

Oct. 24, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11, 1972.

See 409 U.S. 1068, 93 S.Ct. 549.

Russell Iungerich, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.

Roger S. Hanson, Woodland Hills, Cal., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of evidence obtained in a police search of respondents' trash, respondents were charged with possession of marihuana in violation of § 11530 of the California Health & Safety Code. The Supreme Court of California affirmed the superior court's judgment of dismissal and order suppressing the evidence on the grounds that, under the circumstances of this case, respondents 'had a reasonable expectation that their trash would not be rummaged through and picked over by police officers acting without a search warrant.' People v. Krivda, 5 Cal.3d 357, 366 367, 96 Cal.Rptr. 62, 68, 486 P.2d 1262, 1268 (1971) (en banc). We granted certiorari. 405 U.S. 1039, 92 S.Ct. 1307, 31 L.Ed.2d 579.

After briefing and argument, however, we are unable to determine whether the California Supreme Court based its holding upon the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, or upon the equivalent provision of the California Constitution, or both. In reaching its result in this case, the California court cited pertinent excerpts from its earlier decision in People v. Edwards, 71 Cal.2d 1096, 80 Cal.Rptr. 633, 458 P.2d 713 (1969) (en banc), which relied specifically upon both the state and federal provisions. 5 Cal.3d, at 367, 96 Cal.Rptr., at 69, 486 P.2d, at 1269. Thus, as in Department of Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, 380 U.S. 194, 196 197, 85 S.Ct. 871, 873, 13 L.Ed.2d 753 (1965), '(w)hile we might speculate from the choice of words used in the opinion, and the authorities cited by the court, which provision was the basis for the judgment of the state court, we are unable to say with any degree of certainty that the judgment of the California Supreme Court was not based on an adequate and independent nonfederal ground.' We therefore vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of California and remand the cause to that court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate. Department of Mental Hygiene Dept. v. Kirchner, supra; Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U.S. 551, 60 S.Ct. 676, 84 L.Ed. 920 (1940); State Tax Commission of Utah v. Van Cott, 306 U.S. 511, 59 S.Ct. 605, 83 L.Ed. 950 (1939). We intimate to view on...