1. Facts of the Case

Facts of the Case
The Supreme Court case I found was California vs. Greenwood. After a drug suspect provided a tip about a house that was supposedly running drugs the Laguna Beach police department requested that the trash outside the home be picked up and searched. Detective Jenny Stracner asked the neighborhood trash collector to empty his trash been and then pick up the Greenwood garbage and have it delivered to the police station. The collector did so. After searching the trash the police were able to find traces of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. The neighbors also reported odd traffic to the house at odd hours of the night. The police were able to obtain a search warrant based on the contents of the trash collected. In the search they found drug paraphernalia, and traces of cocaine. The trash search gave reason to obtain a search warrant for the home owned by Greenwood. During the search of the home police found substantial amounts of drugs and cash (drug related money), which then lead to the arrest of the defendant. The owner Billy Greenwood was booked on felony drug charges. The California Superior Court dismissed the charges on the because of the fact that it was a warrantless search. According to the fourth amendment the law does not prohibit the search and seizure of garbage left out on the curb. Greenwood argued that the garbage was his personal property. As soon as his garbage left his home it became public property. “Personal property is considered abandoned when the owner disposes of it with the apparent intention of disclaiming ownership. Title to such property is transferred to the first person that takes control over it.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo, page 314). It was free will to have any person or thing rummage through it. Technically it was considered “real property”. “Under common law, ownership of real property extended from the center or the earth to the highest point of the sky.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo, page 315). When in fact the trash Mr. Greenwood left on the curb was considered personal property. “Includes all other property other than real life property, both tangible, and intangible. Example of real property includes furniture, clothing, and books.” (Essentials of Business Law, Luizzo page 315). In fact his trash was still considered personal property. The officers that searched the garbage did not have any search warrant to go through the garbage. The court ruled that trash is trash and police cannot turn a cheek to suspected criminal activity. Thus the courts ruled in favor of California basing that in this case the police did not violate any fourth amendment rights. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_684/

2.Issue of the Case

The main issue is whether garbage left on the curb allows for a warrantless search and seizure by police. The case is before the Supreme Court because the defendant Billy Greenwood felt his fourth amendment rights were violated. Greenwood assumed his personal possessions were still considered “personal property”. Thus the Laguna Beach police department would need a warrant in order to search through the “property,” which the police did not have. The Courts argument is that the garbage was left in opaque trash bags for everyone to see. Greenwoods arguments were fair. Since the police were informed that there was possible illegal drug trafficking occurring inside the home they could not turn a blind eye to the situation. Police obtained a warrant for the home and found what they thought was true. Several different narcotics were being stored in the home. This allowed the police to arrest Greenwood on drug possession and dealing charges. The issues arose with the right to personal property. Who owns the trash once it is displayed on your curbside and with reasonable thought go away to never been seen again. The Fourth Amendment states “The right of the people to be secure their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing place to be searched and the persons to be seized.” (www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/california_v.greenwood) In this case the police had a tip they followed and continued on with a reasonable warrant.

3.Court Decision

The court ruled in a 6-2 win for California. This case set a precedent for future court cases. Establishing a common law that law enforcement can have warrantless trash searches. In previous court cases judges ruled against the defendant. As said before in Katz vs. United States the police officers arrived at the farm on a tip not expecting to look over the fence and see illegal drugs being grown. Katz was then arrested and charged with growing narcotics. The Supreme Court ruled that the police were in the right to be on the property without a warrant. Anything that can be seen by the public is not considered private. It becomes public knowledge and anyone has the rights. The public has a reasonable right to privacy. Justice White stated "It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." http://law.jrank.org "A single bag of trash testifies eloquently to the eating, reading and recreational habits of the person who produced it." http://law.jrank.org Brennan http://law.jrank.org. The opposing Justices also spoke on the case Judge Brenan spoke on behalf of Justice Marshall who also opposed the decision."Scrutiny of another's trash is contrary to commonly accepted notions of civilized behavior . . . Society will be shocked to learn thatthe Court, the ultimate guarantor of liberty, deems unreasonable our expectation that the aspects of our private lives that are concealed safely in a trash bag will not become public." http://law.jrank.org While you can expect your trash to be a private and personal thing it no longer becomes personal when you set it on the curb in an opaque plastic bag. http://law.jrank.org/pages/13057/California-v-Greenwood.html. The Justices refferred back to the framers of the constitution and the weight it may have had on this case. "The Framers of the Fourth Amendment understood that "unreasonable searches" of "papers and effects" -- no less than "unreasonable searches" of "persons and houses" -- infringe privacy. Justice Brennan http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZD.html

4.Reasoning of The Court

This case set a precedent for future cases. Since the ruling it is now legal for law enforcement to look through a garbage bag left on the curb. A court case Katz vs. United States. Katz had placed no trespassing signs all over the property of his farm. Two police offers arrived at his farm acting on a tip that Katz was growing narcotics. In plain sight the officers were able to see that Katz did in fact have marijuana growing on his farm. Both of these cases have set a precedent for future court cases. The court ruled 6-2 against Greenwood. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz v. United States, supra, at 351. We held in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 1979 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=486&invol=35. The Justices involved were: Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Stevens, O’Conner, and Scalia. All voted against Billy Greenwood. Justices Brennan and Marshall voted for Billy Greenwoods defense. The justices concluded that garbage left willing on the curb is accessible to anyone including animals, children, scavengers, and police. The trash is not protected. The trash is meant to be picked up by a third party (the trash collector) who may also rummage through the items and if so hand them over to the police who may further their investigation."So far as Fourth Amendment protection is concerned, opaque plastic bags are every bit as [p49] worthy as "packages wrapped in green opaque plastic" and "double-locked footlocker[s]." Cf. Robbins, supra, at 441 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting) (objecting to Court's discovery of reasonable expectation of privacy in contents of "two plastic garbage bags")." http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZD.html
Justice explain that the bags were clear enough that anyone could have looked through them. If the contents were placed in a locked garbage can then then this would have justified a warrant. The defending Justice still pleads that the garbage was still personal property siding with the defedant. "A container which can support a reasonable expectation of privacy may not be searched, even on probable cause, without a warrant." Judge Brennan http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZD.html

5.Rule of Law

To summarize the case the defendant left his garbage on the street in front of his home. Assuming the garbage man would come and haul it off to the landfill. A drug suspect in another case told police the suspect was a trafficking drug through his home. Detective Strancer asked the regular trash hauler to empty his truck, pick up Greenwoods garbage, and deliver it to the police station. The trash was delivered and searched by police. The contents of the trash bag included drug paraphernalia and traces of cocaine. The police were then granted a search warrant to search the property where they found a substantial amount of illegal narcotics. The case wentto the California courts where it was dismissed. Then carried out to the Supreme Court. The court concluded that the warrantless search of the trash was justifiable under the Fourth Amendment the trash search was valid. The court held the defendant responsible. The final vote was 6-2 against the defendant. The court stated “The police cannot be expected to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by "any member of the public."” http://www.oyez.org/cases/19801989/1987/1987_86_684/

6.My Argument

My argument In my opinion Billy Greenwood was breaking the law. I have to side with the courts on this issue. I am a firm believer in justice for all. My mom always taught me if you do something wrong you are always going to get caught in one way or another you would pay the consequences. I believe in this case Billy Greenwood was a victim of his own stupidity. By leaving his trash on the curb in clear bags with drug paraphernalia is just a calling card. Perhaps it was the drugs taking over his mind, which caused him not to think clearly when he was doing this. I believe the fourth amendment protects our privacy. But if it were so private why would you put it on the curb for anyone to rummage through. I also believe that if the police know that there is a crime occurring that should have the right to search through garbage. So the Police and the law had every right to search his trash. He was breaking the law there for his rights were narrowed as soon as he became a suspect.

7.Dissent of the Case

The case was decided in a 6-2 vote. The Supreme Court Justices that voted against California stated that privacy is a right in this country "Scrutiny of another's trash is contrary to commonly accepted notions of civilized behavior . . . Society will be shocked to learn that the Court, the ultimate guarantor of liberty, deems unreasonable our expectation that the aspects of our private lives that are concealed safely in a trash bag will not become public." Justice Brennan addressing the court and the people. http://law.jrank.org. What Justice is saying is that you have the right to free property as soon as the government takes that away we are sacrificing the rights that we are born with as Americans. We no longer have control over what we own and what we put on the curb. We are giving the law a free ticket to search and do anything they wish. What you put in your trash no longer is personal. "We reject respondent Greenwood's alternative argument for affirmance: that his expectation of privacy in his garbage should be deemed reasonable as a matter of federal constitutional law because the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage was impermissible as a matter of California law." Judge White http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZD.html. A defending Justices opinion that is it is unconstitutional to search trash deeming that is still considered private property.

Naked Nymphomaniac

Naked Nymphomaniac

Today we watched an older movie called the Naked Nymphomaniac. The movie was about a questionable porn movie that was sent to the Supreme Court. At the time of this movie there were six Supreme Court Justices. One was a woman. In the movie the men of the court seemed to talk down to her because she was a woman. In the movie Justice Snow (a man) refused to watch the movie because he felt that the producer had every right to release the movies, to him it was art. The woman justice felt this was very unfair and that he should eliminate himself from the judging if he wasn’t going to watch the movie. There is no longer an issue with appointing women to the court. There are in fact a majority of women are being nominated for the future position. Perhaps we need more women in the Supreme Court. I think we need equality in the courts. Why not have equal justices white, black, yellow, brown, male, female, transgender, Christian, Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim. As long as the people in the supreme court are qualified and can present a reasonable opinion on United States court cases, then why not. I think the porn industry is sad. I really feel that men and women degrade themselves to make money. I grew up in a very small suburb city so coming to a big city like Las Vegas opened my eyes to what people will do for money. I see so many women in my daily life that are willing to take their clothes off just to make a car payment. Take all the “things and the stuff” you need in life away and you wouldn’t need to do any of that. The producers are even more scummy and money grubbing then anyone. They will pay top dollar to any young girl that will perform for them. It needs to be stopped, but in reality this sort of thing has been going on for a very long time. The issues on the film become even more relevant today because there is so much of it on the internet. It’s so easy to access for anyone including young children. To me it needs to be regulated somehow. As technology gets faster more issues will begin to arise and more court case will as well. This is a never ending cycle/

Supreme Court Case

Fourth Amendment Rights, which state that a person has right to personal property the right to privacy. In the Greenwood case the defendants garbage was questioned whether or not it could justifiably be considered personal belongings since it was left on the curb. Which most might think that once it is put into an opaque plastic garbage bag does it become the right of whomever picks up or rummages through this garbage. The bag is no longer in your possession the defendant willing left the bag on the curbside completely unprotected. The fourth amendment clearly states that “It is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” (Fourth Amendment). The interesting question is whether the fourth Amendment protects specific privacies such as a garbage bag. Judge Brenann who voted for Billy Green wood states “It should make no difference what type of package it is, as long as its contents are concealed. Brennan also pointed out that it should make no differencethat Greenwood used the bags to throw away, rather than to transport, his belongings. Greenwood's decision to throw away the trash does not lessen his expectation of privacy. "A single bag of trash testifies eloquently to the eating, reading and recreational habits of the person who produced it." (http://law.jrank.org/pages/13057/California-v-Greenwood.html). However if in case the police are informed of possible crime in progress are they expected too turn their heads. In holding that the warrantless search of Greenwood's trash was consistent with the Fourth Amendment, the Court paints a grim picture of our society . . . The American society with which I am familiar . . . is more dedicated to individual liberty and more sensitive to intrusions on the sanctity of the home than the Court is willing to acknowledge.” Judge Brenan (http://law.jrank.org/pages/13057/California-v-Greenwood.html). The law and the police have more power over privacy than most would like to aknowledge. After this ruling it is now more common for police and FBI agents to search through garbage bags. “In some fundamental sense, we are what we throw away.” (Sanders, Time Magazine, Lifting the Lid on Garbage, 2). “Just how embarrassing a search can be even for innocent parties was demonstrated in 1975, when the National Enquirer made off with five bags of refuse from outside the home of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and published its gleanings. Other celebrities have also had their garbage snooped. In some fundamental sense, we are what we throw away” (Sanders, Time Magazine, Lifting the Lid on Garbage, 2). Privacy is only private if you create privacy.

Illicit Goods

After watching the video I am carrying around a bit of guilt. My mother, sister, and I are guilty of purchasing knock off designer goods. The thought never really crossed our minds while we were purchasing the goods. We thought they were "cute" great prices and looked like the real thing. We were excited that we didn't have to spend $1200 on a bag instead we paid only a $100 for. To me the cost now is much more than that. People’s lives were lost in the production of the bags or goods In one particular store in Colorado the bags actually had the authenticity card (which was probably fake). I don't think a lot of Americans think about the production and the place where the bag came from. What really went into getting this bag into this place? I couldn't believe that people would actually buy pills off the black market. You don't think people will consider the safety and the health risks that go into buying pills of any sort from someone you don't know. It's suicide. People in foreign countries who are on social security or who have to accept cough medicine that is potentially tainted as "poison" they don’t know any better. They don’t understand that a rich billionaire is just trying to make money and whether someone dies or not really doesn’t matter to that person. I will think twice before I buy another bag, sunglasses, or some other knock off good just because it’s cheap and it looks nice. So question is do I destroy my knock offs or from now on do I just think twice before purchasing fake knock off goods?

Supreme Court Case Progress

For my blog I will continue to research the case Greenwood vs. California. As my understanding goes the issue amounted to a man who previously violated the law. His “rights” were violated when the California police department received a tip regarding some suspicious activity reported by his neighbors. A suspect in a drug case confirmed that there was in fact drug trafficking occurring in that particular home. The police searched Greenwoods garbage and found drug residue and paraphernalia (without a warrant). I am beginning to understand more the rights of those who uphold the law and those that are intentionally breaking the law. So in fact I would like to know more about Greenwoods opinions on the case. Does he truly feel that as someone who broke the law he deserves to have rights. When it comes to personal property what is personal and what is garbage. If you put something out on a public street corner are you not going to assume that anyone including police, children, and animals are going to go through the trash? I would like to know the responsibilities of a police offer if he sees a suspicious package sitting on your curb side and is concerned for the well being of the people. Does he have a right to investigate this item without reasonable cause..just a mere hunch? For next week this is what I plan to research.