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.