California Versus Greenwood
The Facts
The police in Greenwood's local area suspected him of conducting illegal drug trade from his residence. The police did not have any evidence to secure a search warrant in his residence. So, they decided to rummage through the garbage he had left for pick up at the curb of his residence. They uncovered evidence that suggested drug abuse. They used the evidence to successfully secure a search warrant. They proceeded to search his house and arrested him and charged him for felony (Minor, 2-4). The search was illegal. The subsequent debate for scholars and critics alike was on whether the search without a proper warrant amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The case under review touched on the protections extended by the law in the 4th Amendment including the exclusionary limits. The question arises on what exactly the limit of an individual's privacy penumbra is. There is a question as to how an individual's trash content becomes public property. Is trash that has been removed from a person's house and prepared for collection property that can be subjected to public scrutiny? Does one's right to privacy extend all the way to the garbage dump? Should one expect privacy even after it has been exposed to public view and scrutiny? More importantly, is the question whether evidence acquired from garbage at the curb can be used as sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant (Uviller).
The Decision Made By the Court, And the Reasons Informing the Decision
The...
The court found that such garbage collected at the curb is not protected by the 4th Amendment. The court postulated that expectation of privacy at the curb was not a reasonable stance. Further, the court pointed out that the police could not sit by the fence and watch perpetrators of criminal activities carry out their illegal operations. In any case, such activity can be observed by any private citizen (CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD). In any case, respondent took their garbage to the curb expecting third parties to access it. Thus by the sheer placing of the garbage in a location that the public could access and inspect uninhibited, the respondent had surrendered any claim to privacy under the fourth Amendment. The court made it clear that it was unreasonable to expect the police to ignore evidence of criminal pursuits that was already an object of inspection and view by anyone who cared to look in that direction. Consequently, the court said, that what anyone exposes for public view or access; irrespective of whether it is in his homestead or at the office cannot be an object to be considered under the protections expended by the 4th Amendment. Referring to Katz versus the US case (389 U.S. 347 (1967)), it was decided by the court that what an individual or group knowingly exposes to the public irrespective of whether it was at the office or home, cannot be an issue to be analyzed under the 4th Amendment (CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD). The rule referred to as the 3rd party rule which points out that…
