California vs Greenwood

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 court delivered a ruling that was determined by a vote of 6 to 2. 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 if one willingly shares information with a third party they also willingly give up their right to privacy.

It does not matter whether you have given it with expectation of confidentiality by the third party in question. Such information includes phone records, internet data, bank records and other similar information that can be used against one's interest. The court dismissed the respondent's plea for privacy because it was utterly untenable under the circumstances. Analysis of the Court's Decision The majority opinion rendered by the court (6-2) was written by Justice Byron. Justice Kennedy abstained from hearing the case.

The court outlined that he 4th Amendment did not by any measure prohibit seizure or even search in the first place of garbage in such a place as a curb without a warrant. The judge went on to point out that the plastic bags left at the side of a public access street are not only accessible to animals and birds, but also to humans who are expected to ferry them to the dump areas (CALIFORNIA v. GREENWOOD).

He pointed out that there was really no need to seek a search warrant for items and locations which birds, snoops, animals and others can easily access. Justices Marshall and Brennan dissented strongly by saying that the public would be shocked by the decision. They said that inspecting other people's trash was not civilized behavior. They observed that a trash bag from a person's house indicated all the people's private activities including what he eats, his professional status, private thoughts, political persuasions and other similar confidential data.

The Greenwood decision seems to have set the pace for more similar narrow consideration of the right to privacy. The decision seems to warn people to be more wary of what they drop in the trash can (Uviller). The case is a precedent for future decisions The ruling by the judges, as written by Judge Byron, put to rest the controversy surrounding whether trash collected from an individual's curb area can be used as evidence against that person.

The fourth Amendment does not guarantee privacy unless the society expects such privacy to be of.