California v. Greenwood: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:36, 11 July 2005

Latest revision as of 04:15, 5 June 2024

(243 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}

In May 16, 1988, the [[Supreme Court]] decided by 6-2 vote that [[post-consumer waste]] holds no reasonable expectation of [[privacy]]. The dissenting justices claimed that there is an expectation that content of any opaque container thrown out or transported will remain private and that search of another person's garbage does not constitute civilized behavior, but the majority ruled that the bags of trash left on the side of the street are in public ___domain, open to inspection by "animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public".

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=California v. Greenwood

|ArgueDate=January 11

|ArgueYear=1988

|DecideDate=May 16

|DecideYear=1988

|FullName=California v. Billy Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten

|USVol=486

|USPage=35

|ParallelCitations=108 S. Ct. 1625; 100 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 30; 56 U.S.L.W. 4409

|Prior=Drug charges against defendants dismissed by California Superior Court (unpublished). Affirmed, California Court of Appeal, 182 Cal.App.3d 729 (1986). [[Certiorari|Cert]]. granted, {{ussc|483|1019|1987|el=no}}.

|Holding=The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless [[search and seizure]] of [[waste]] left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. California Court of Appeal reversed.

|Majority=White

|JoinMajority=Rehnquist, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia

|Dissent=Brennan

|JoinDissent=Marshall

|NotParticipating=Kennedy

|LawsApplied=[[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amends. IV]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|XIV]]; Cal. Const., Art. I, § 28(d)

}}

'''''California v. Greenwood''''', 486 U.S. 35 (1988), was a [[Legal case|case]] in which the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] held that the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]] does not prohibit the [[Search warrant|warrantless]] search and seizure of [[Waste|garbage]] left for collection outside the [[curtilage]] of a [[home]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/486/35.html|access-date=2021-10-15|website=Findlaw|language=en-US}}</ref>

The police, after receiving a tip that Billy Greenwood was dealing in illegal [[drug]]s, searched trash bags on his curb. They found [[drug paraphernalia]] in the discarded waste, and then applied for a [[search warrant]]. Based on the trash content and the subsequent evidence found during the search, Greenwood was convicted.

This case has been widely cited as "trashing"<ref>{{Cite web |title=California v. (Verus) Greenwood: Did the United States Supreme Court Trash the Fourth Amendment? {{!}} Office of Justice Programs |url=https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/california-v-verus-greenwood-did-united-states-supreme-court-trash#:~:text=In%20California%20v.,protection%20of%20an%20individual's%20privacy. |access-date=2023-12-26 |website=www.ojp.gov}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=California v. Greenwood: A Trashing of the Fourth Amendment |url=https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2079&context=wvlr}}</ref> the Fourth Amendment with critics stating "the decision fails to recognize any reasonable expectation of privacy in the telling items Americans throw away" and that those who wish to preserve the privacy of their trash must now "resort to other, more expensive, self-help measures such as an investment in a trash compactor or a paper shredder."

After this decision, [[paper shredder]]s became popular between Americans.

== Background ==

* [http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/greenwoo.htm ThinkQuest - California v. Greenwood]

In early 1984, Investigator Jenny Stracner of the [[Laguna Beach]] Police Department learned from various sources that Billy Greenwood might be selling [[Illegal drug trade|illegal drugs]] out of his single-family home. In April, Stracner asked the neighborhood's regular [[Waste collector|trash collector]] to pick up the plastic [[Bin bag|garbage bags]] that Greenwood left on the curb in front of his house. In the garbage, she found evidence of drug use. She used that information to obtain a warrant to search Greenwood's home. When officers searched the house, they found [[cocaine]] and [[marijuana]]. Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten were arrested and released on [[bail]].

In May, another investigator again had the garbage collectors pick up the garbage bag left on the curb. The garbage again contained evidence of drugs, the police obtained another search warrant, and they found more drugs and evidence of [[drug trafficking]] in the house.

The California Superior Court dismissed the charges against Greenwood and Van Houten on the ground that unwarranted trash searches violated the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, as well as the [[California Constitution]]. The [[California Court of Appeal|Court of Appeal]] affirmed. The [[Supreme Court of California]] refused to hear the appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court granted [[certiorari]] and reversed the judgment of the California Court of Appeal.

{{case-law-stub}}

[[Category:1988 in law]]

== Opinion of the Court ==

[[Category:United States case law]]

By a 6–2 vote ([[Justice Kennedy]] took no part in the case), the Court held that under the Fourth Amendment, no warrant was necessary to search the trash because Greenwood had no [[reasonable expectation of privacy]] in it. Although Greenwood had hidden the trash from view by putting it in opaque plastic bags and expected it to be on the street only a short time before it would be taken to the dump, the Court believed it to be “common knowledge” that garbage at the side of the street is “readily accessible to [[animal]]s, [[child]]ren, [[scavenger]]s, [[Busybody|snoop]]s, and other members of the public.” Moreover, Greenwood had left the trash there expressly so that the trash collector, a stranger, could take it. Quoting ''[[Katz v. United States]]'', the court concluded that "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."

Greenwood argued that the evidence should be excluded under the [[California Constitution]], which the California Supreme Court had interpreted to prohibit warrantless searches of garbage left at the curb (''People v. Krivda'', 1971). However, the Constitution had been amended in 1982 by the passage of [[1982 California Proposition 8|Proposition 8]], also known as the "Victims' Bill of Rights." One of its provisions, the Truth-in-Evidence Act, eliminated the [[exclusionary rule]] for unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The Court rejected Greenwood's claim that the amendment violated the [[Due Process Clause]]. It held that so long as the police conduct did not violate federal law, "California could permissibly conclude that the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs."

==Dissent==

Justice Brennan reasoned that the possibility the police or other “unwelcome meddlers” might rummage through the trash bags “does not negate the [[expectation of privacy]] in their contents any more than the possibility of a burglary negates an expectation of privacy in the home.” Under ''[[United States v. Chadwick]]'', the bags could not have been searched without a search warrant had Greenwood been carrying them in public. Merely leaving them on the curb for the garbage man to collect, Brennan argued, should not be found to remove that expectation of privacy, for “scrutiny of another's trash is contrary to commonly accepted notions of civilized behavior.”

==See also==

* ''[[California v. Ciraolo]],'' {{ussc|476|207|1986}}

* [[Curtilage]]

* ''[[Dow Chemical Co. v. United States]],'' {{ussc|476|227|1986}}

* [[Expectation of privacy]]

* ''[[Florida v. Riley]],'' {{ussc|488|445|1989}}: No warrant needed for observations from public airspace.

* ''[[Kyllo v. United States]],'' {{ussc|533|27|2001}}

* [[Open-fields doctrine]]

* [[DNA profiling#Surreptitious DNA collecting|Surreptitious DNA collecting]]

* [[List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court]]

* [[Garbage theft]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

==External links==

* {{wikisource-inline|California v. Greenwood}}

* {{caselaw source

| case=''California v. Greenwood'', {{Ussc|486|35|1988|el=no}}

| findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/486/35.html

| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6002389719901840494

| justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/35/

| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep486/usrep486035/usrep486035.pdf

| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-684

}}

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20051201082930/http://library.thinkquest.org/2760/greenwoo.htm ThinkQuest - California v. Greenwood]

{{US4thAmendment|scope|state=expanded}}

[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court]]

[[Category:1988 in United States case law]]

[[Category:Waste in the United States]]

[[Category:1988 in lawCalifornia]]

[[Category:Legal history of California]]

[[Category:Laguna Beach, California]]

[[Category:Law enforcement in California]]

[[Category:United States Fourth Amendment case law]]