California V. Greenwood
Case name: California v. Billy Greenwood and Dyanne van Houten
Year decided: 1988
Result: 6-2, in favor of California
Related constitutional issue/amendment: Fourth Amendment (search and seizure)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of garbage that is placed at the curbside, is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that there is no logical argument to expect privacy of trash on public streets. Also, the Court stated that the police cannot turn a blind eye to obvious criminal activity that can be observed by the public.
Quote from majority opinion: "The Court observed that the overwhelming weight of authority rejects the proposition that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists with respect to trash discarded outside the home and the curtilege thereof. In addition, of those state appellate courts that have considered the issue, the vast majority have held that the police may conduct warrantless searches and seizures of garbage discarded in public areas."
Summary of the dissent: The trash disposed of on the curbside still retained the identity of Greenwood's trash as opposed to trash that was strewn about on the street and therefore is still classified as belonging to Greenwood. Also, the fact that trash is "readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public" does not mean that privacy of their contents should not be expected.
Six-word summary: It's ok to look through trash.
Year decided: 1988
Result: 6-2, in favor of California
Related constitutional issue/amendment: Fourth Amendment (search and seizure)
Civil rights or civil liberties: civil liberties
Significance/precedent: The Court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of garbage that is placed at the curbside, is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that there is no logical argument to expect privacy of trash on public streets. Also, the Court stated that the police cannot turn a blind eye to obvious criminal activity that can be observed by the public.
Quote from majority opinion: "The Court observed that the overwhelming weight of authority rejects the proposition that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists with respect to trash discarded outside the home and the curtilege thereof. In addition, of those state appellate courts that have considered the issue, the vast majority have held that the police may conduct warrantless searches and seizures of garbage discarded in public areas."
Summary of the dissent: The trash disposed of on the curbside still retained the identity of Greenwood's trash as opposed to trash that was strewn about on the street and therefore is still classified as belonging to Greenwood. Also, the fact that trash is "readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public" does not mean that privacy of their contents should not be expected.
Six-word summary: It's ok to look through trash.