¶1concurring in' the result.
¶2[¶ 15] I concur in the result reached by the majority. I do not join in the majority’s reliance on the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth v. James, 620 Pa. 465, 69 A.3d 180 (2013) to reach this result.
[¶ 16] As the majority notes in ¶ 7:
In this case, probable cause is based on evidence gained during a warrantless search of trash located outside Apland’s residence. “If an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area, the government must obtain a warrant prior to conducting a search unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies.” State v. Mittleider, 2011 ND 242, ¶ 14, 809 N.W.2d 303. No reasonable expectation of privacy exists for garbage set out for collection. State v. Carriere, 545 N.W.2d 773, 776 (N.D. 1996).
¶3[¶ 17] Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 41(c)(1)(C), the magistrate must be “satis-*920fled that grounds for the application exist or that there is probable cause to believe they exist” before the warrant is issued. While I agree the “exact location” of the garbage does not need to be disclosed, there has to be something in the affidavit or sworn testimony to permit the magistrate to- reasonably infer that the location is such that the owner has abandoned the expectation of privacy. The affidavit in this case said “Officer Lenertz arranged the trash pull with the Minot City Sanitation.” This permits the magistrate to infer that the garbage is in a location where it would ordinarily be retrieved by Minot City Sanitation and that the owner has abandoned any expectation of privacy or control over its disposition.
¶4[¶ 18] CAROL RONNING KAPSNER