CRIMPRO DIGESTS G01
ATTY. ARNO V. SANIDAD
130) State vs. Claus von Bulow
475 A.2d 995 | May 24, 1984 | SC of Rhode Island
Private Searches & "State Expansion of Private Search"
Issues: (1) Whether or not the trial court erred in denying the defendant access to
certain materials in Kuhs possession; (2) Whether or not the trial justice erred by
failing to exclude the results of tests performed by state officials upon the contents of
the black back without obtaining a search warrant.
Facts:
In 1980, Martha von Bulow was found in a comatose on her bathroom floor in
their home in Newfort, and she remained in a coma. Approximately one year
earlier, she suffered a similar episode of unconsciousness from which she
quickly recovered.
Before the second coma, Marthas personal maid found a black bag in Claus
closet that contained insulin. The personal maid told Alex, which raised his
suspicion because Marthas blood sugar was extremely low when she got in a
come.
Suspecting that Claus von Bulow, her husband, may have poisoned his wife,
their son-Alex, her daughter-Ala and her mother, Mrs. Aitken, hired former
Manhattan District Attorney Richard Kuh to investigate the cause of Mrs. von
Bulow's condition.
In their meeting, Alex told Kuh about his previous attempts to locate the
black bag in Claus closet at Clarendon Court. It was decided that Alex would
go back to Newport to look.
Alex drove from New York City to Rhode Island with a Mr. Edwin Lambert,
a private investigator hired through Kuh. Alex and Lambert engaged a
locksmith and then traveled on to Newport. The door of the locked walk-in
closet, was opened, and the locksmith was dismissed. During the search, they
found a vial of Valium and syringes.
Upon his return to New York, the contents of the black bag were removed and
examined by a friend of Kuh.
Alex thereafter gave the bag to the family physician, Dr. Richard Stock, who
sent it for examination. Doctor Nitis testified that there was presence of
insulin in the syringes. Dr. Aggarwall testified that there was Valium
On March 13, 1981, Alex transported the black bag and its contents to Rhode
Island and handed them over to Rhode Island State Police.
The state continued the investigation, expanding upon the work of Kuh and
the others involved in the family's investigation.
Claus filed an omnibus motion requesting that the indictment be dismissed on
the grounds that Kuh's involvement unconstitutionally interfered with the
impartiality of the public prosecutor and unconstitutionally influenced the
prosecution. He also sought for the disclosure of the materials in Kuhs
TOPIC: PARTIISearch And Seizures
AUTHOR: Aves
possession denied. The trial justice ruled that all the documents withheld by
Kuh were protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product
doctrine.
Claus was found guilty of two counts of attempted murder. Claus moved for
judgment of acquittal and new trial denied. Hence, this appeal.
SC Ruling:
I. Yes, the trial court erred in denying access to information held by Kuh. Kuh
contended that the information was covered by the attorney-client privilege. The Court
satisfied that an attorney-client relationship did exist between Kuh and Alex. However,
it was already waived.
An essential element that must be provided in establishing the existence of the
privilege is that it has not been waived. The privilege may be waived when there has
been disclosure of a confidential communication to a third party
In the present case, Alex and the other family members instructed Kuh to contact the
authorities. Kuh contacted the Attorney General's office by telephone and first met
with the Rhode Island State Police, where he turned over a type-written summary
prepared by him detailing incidents that had led him and the family to conclude that
defendant had attempted to kill his wife. It clearly indicates that the disclosure of
information to the State Police by Kuh was made with the consent of his clients.
"When the clients conduct touches a certain point of disclosure, fairness requires that
his privilege shall cease whether he intended that result or not. He cannot be allowed,
after disclosing as much as he pleases, to withhold the remainder. He may elect to
withhold or to disclose, but after a certain point his election must remain final.
II. Yes, the trial court ered. Alex and Lambert's conduct in looking for the black bag
"did not implicate the Fourth Amendment because the constitutional prohibition of
unreasonable searches and seizures applies only to governmental conduct." However,
there was no warrant procured to authorize the chemical testing and no exception to
the warrant requirement exists to justify its absence. The admission of these test
results can only be permitted if it is determined that the subsequent testing was
not a significant expansion of the prior private search.
In Eiseman, we enunciated four specific factors in the Significant expansion doctrine
in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search will invoke the
protection of the Fourth Amendment:
1. The police officer's experience and expertise. (satisfied in this case)
2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an
opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the
substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search.
CRIMPRO DIGESTS G01 TOPIC: PARTIISearch And Seizures
ATTY. ARNO V. SANIDAD AUTHOR: Aves

3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion.

4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further
expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by
private persons.

Having reviewed the evidence, the Court was convinced that all four militate against
the trial justice's conclusion and in favor of our finding that the state's subsequent
toxicological examination was a significant expansion of the private search subject
to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

2nd Factor: Despite his expertise, Lieutenant Reise was unable to identify with a
reasonable degree of certainty those substances that he had received from Alex without
further testing.

3rd and 4th Factor: If defendant retains a constitutionally protected expectation of

privacy in the items delivered to the state by private parties, and the state intrudes upon
that expectation of privacy, it does so subject to the proscription of the Fourth
Amendment. Claus originally possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy in the pills
and other contents of the black bag. These items were originally found in an opaque
black bag inside a metal box in a locked closet in his home. The fact that they were
unexpectedly seized, inspected, and delivered to the State Police by a private party
does not alter Claus legitimate original expectation of privacy.

The Government may not exceed the scope of the private search unless it has the right
to make an independent search. The state therefore did intrude upon a further
expectation of defendant's privacy. The extent of the state's intrusion is significant
because, without it, the initial view of the objects tested produced only an inference of
criminal conduct by Clause.

Since we hold that the state's subsequent chemical analysis of certain contents of the
black bag was a significant expansion of the private search and that there were no
exceptions to the warrant requirement, Claus conviction must be reversed. In a case in
which "the authorities have not relied on what is in effect a private search, they
presumptively violate the Fourth Amendment if they act without a warrant." The
state may not significantly expand the scope of a private search unless it obtains a
warrant.