California vs Greenwood Challenges the Fourth Amendment Privacy of Search and Seizure - Research Paper Example

Donna Purcell Order 599646 17 November US Supreme Court Case: California v. Greenwood Challenges the Fourth Amendment Privacy of Search and Seizure Argued January 1988, Decided May 16, 1988 It was early in 1984, Investigator Jenny Stracner received a tip that a certain person of suspicion, by the name of Greenwood, may be involved in narcotics trafficking. Stracner got a further tip from an informant that a load of illegal drugs was on its way to Greenwood’s residence in Laguna Beach, CA. The tip was given to a federal drug enforcement agent in February of 1984 and relayed to Stracner. There had also been complaints from neighbors of a lot of heavy traffic activity in front of the residence late in the evenings. It was noted that these heavy vehicles only remained at the residence for a short period of time, which raised suspicions. In order to investigate these complaints, surveillance of the Greenwood’s home was necessary. Observations were made of several heavy vehicles making late evening and early morning stops in front of the residence. Stracner was able to follow one of the vehicles to another residence that had been the target of another investigation for trafficking of narcotics. It wasn’t until April that Stracner had collected enough evidence to prompt a request that the neighborhoods regular trash collectors pick up the plastic bags that Greenwood left on the curb. She further asked him to turn the bags over to her taking much care not to mix the contents with any garbage from other houses. The trash collector proceeded to do as Stracner instructed and turned the designated bags over to her. Officer Stracner then searched the garbage in the bags and found items that were pertinent to narcotics use. She then conveyed the information that she had found within the trash in order to obtain a warrant to search Greenwood’s home. When the warrant was served at Greenwood’s home, both suspects were present from both residences. They discovered quantities of Cocaine and Hashish during the search of the home. Both suspects were arrested on felony narcotics charges. The police received further reports of late night visits to Greenwood’s house. On May 4, 1984 Investigator Robert Rahaeuser again obtained garbage from the regular trash collector at Greenwood’s home in the same manner as Stracner. Again the collected garbage was searched and evidence of narcotics use was found. Rahaeuser used the information to obtain another search warrant of Greenwood’s house. More evidence was found that indicated narcotics trafficking and Greenwood was arrested again. Based on the evidence collected from the garbage Greenwood was convicted of the drug-related charges. Based on the conviction, Greenwood appealed the decision to the Supreme Court claiming that Stacner and Rahaeuser had searched his garbage without a warrant making it an illegal search. The Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for pickup outside the immediate perimeter or curtilage of a home. The Conclusion: The ruling was determined to be influenced by the majority of the lower courts that have addressed the issue in the past, that it does not. Justice White delivered the majority opinion with a 6-2 vote. It held that, “the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.” He further interjected that (a) Since the suspects voluntarily left their garbage for collection in an area that was commonly suited for public inspection, the claim of expectation of privacy in relation to the items discarded was not objectively reasonable. It was concluded that it was common knowledge that plastic trash bags left along a public street are easily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and any other member of the public. It was also noted that when the suspects placed their trash at the curb for the purpose of giving it to a third party, the trash collector, it could have been sorted through by him, the police or anybody else he so allowed. It was further noted that the trash was contained in opaque plastic bags, which made its contents further accessible to anyone. The police could not reasonably be expected to turn their eyes away from any evidence of criminal activity seen by any member of the public. (b) Greenwood’s backup argument contended that his expectation of privacy in his trash should have been deemed reasonable as a matter of federal constitutional law because the warrantless search and seizure was not admissible as in the case of California law in People v. Krivda. Krivda held that warrantless trash searches violate the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution. However it was concluded that the suspects exposed their garbage to the public in such a way to defeat their claim to Fourth Amendment protection. Justices Marshall and Brennan delivered the dissenting opinion. It was their contention that “as long as the package is closed against inspection, the Fourth Amendment protects its contents, wherever they may be, and the police must obtain a warrant to search it.” Brennan further added that the suspects do not deserve any less protection because he used the bags to throw out trash rather than to move his personal effects. He further noted that the contents of the bags were not any less private, and his desire to throw them out in the manner that he chose did not lower his expected image of privacy. Brennan continued, adding that if the suspect had taken the garbage from the bags and thrown it all over the curb exposing the details or any government intruder had done the same, it would be believed to be unreasonable. However, considering the possibility that anyone unwelcomed may open and rifle through the trash containers did not discount the expectation of privacy. He further contended that an individual further has the right to think that the contents of an opaque bag thrown out or transported will stay private. In this Case, however, the garbage contained in the trash bags was ruled public domain and the evidence became admissible. This was a landmark case for narcotic searches. The opinion of the court justifies acceptable behavior by authority figures when dealing with any illegal activity. This supports complaints by the general public pertaining to illegal activity and proof contained within the bags. It is a question of what is private and what is not and where ones privacy ends. Since the garbage was contained in opaque bags and left at the curb for pickup by a stranger, it had been discarded by the owner in a plausible fashion. Ownership had been given up to a third party making the trash bags legal for search. Questions: 1. What do you consider reasonable for Fourth Amendment constitutional protection to stand? 2. Do you think the fact that the trash bags were opaque, making the contents visible to anyone, constitutes privacy? 3. Do you think what a person exposes to the general public in his home, office or immediate surrounding area to be private under the Fourth Amendment regardless of its legality, and its effect on the immediate community? References California v. Greenwood. “Casebriefs.” Web. 17 November 2011. http://casebriefs.com/. California v. Greenwood. “6-2 vote, May 16, 1988.” Web. 17 November 2011. http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/greenwoo/. Justia. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988). “U. S. Supreme Court Cases and Opinions.” Web. 17 November 2011. http://supreme,justia.com/us/486/35/case/. White, J., Opinion of the Court. 16 May 1988. “Supreme Court of the United States.” California v. Greenwood. Web. 17 November 2011. http://law,cornell.edu/. Read More