California v. Krivda
CALIFORNIA v. KRIVDA Et Al.
Opinion
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 , 486 P. 2d 1262, 1268 (1971)
(en banc).
We granted certiorari. 405 U. S. 1039 .
*35 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 , 458 P. 2d 713 (1969)
(en banc), which relied specifically upon both the state and federal provisions. 5 Cal. 3d, at 367 , 486 P. 2d, at 1269 . Thus, as in Mental Hygiene Dept.
v. Kirchner, 380 U. S. 194, 196-197 (1965), “[wjhile 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.
Mental Hygiene Dept.
v. Kirchner, supra; Minnesota v. National Tea Co., 309 U. S. 551 (1940);
State Tax Comm’n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511 (1939). We intimate no view on the merits of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment issue presented.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 8 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(remanding for determination whether holding was based on state or federal law)
-
(judgment affirming a suppression order vacated when it was unclear whether judgment rested on state or federal constitutional grounds)
-
(remand necessary to determine basis of California Supreme Court ruling for purposes of federal jurisdiction)
-
(confirming state constitution furnished independent ground for decision)
-
(reaffirming original decision under the California Constitution)
Cited by 86 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court33
- U.S. Courts of Appeals9
- Federal District Courts3
- State Highest Courts30
- State Appellate Courts11
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.