California v. Greenwood

Petitioner
State of California
Respondent
Billy Greenwood
Petitioner's Claim
That a warrantless search and seizure of garbage placed at the curb for pickup does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Michael J. Pear
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Michael Ian Garey
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia,John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall (Anthony M. Kennedy did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
16 May 1988
Decision
Reversed the California Court of Appeal decision and ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage placed on the curb for collection.
Significance
The ruling settled the question of whether a person's trash, placed on the curb for collection, could be searched without a warrant. The expectation of privacy does not guarantee protection by the Fourth Amendment unless society considers that expectation to be reasonable. It is not reasonable to believe that trash placed at the curb will remain private.
In February of 1984, a criminal suspect informed a federal drug enforcement agent that a shipment of illegal drugs was on its way to the home of Billy Greenwood. Also, a neighbor had complained that numerous cars arrived at Greenwood's home late at night and stayed only a few minutes. Acting on this information, Investigator Jenny Stracner of the Laguna Beach Police Department observed vehicles making brief stops at the house at night. She followed a truck from Greenwood's house to a suspected drug dealing location.
On 6 April 1984, Stracner asked the trash collector to bring her Greenwood'splastic garbage bags, which Greenwood had left for pick-up on the curb. The trash collector did so. Stracner searched through the garbage and found itemsassociated with drug use--razor blades, straws with cocaine residue, and phone bills noting calls to people with drug records. Listing her finds in an affidavit, Stracner obtained a search warrant. The police searched the house, found quantities of hashish and cocaine, and arrested Greenwood and Dyanne VanHouten on felony narcotics charges. Greenwood posted bail and was soon free.Once again, the police received complaints about frequent late-night visits to the house.
On 4 May 1984, Investigator Robert Rahaeuser got Greenwood's trash bags fromthe garbage collector. A search of the rubbish revealed evidence of illegal drug use. Rahaeuser obtained a search warrant, and the police found more drugsand evidence of drug dealing. They again arrested Greenwood.
The Superior Court of Orange County dismissed the charges against Greenwood because People v. Krivda (1971) held that trash searches without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution. The courtfelt that without the search of the trash, the police would not have had probable cause to search the home. The California Court of Appeals agreed with the Superior Court. The California Supreme Court declined to review the case.
The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures and states that probable cause must exist for a warrant to be issued. The Fourth Amendmentwas added to the Constitution to guard against arbitrary police intrusions,such as the colonists had frequently experienced under British rule, and which had come to represent governmental oppression. Like many parts of the Constitution, this amendment could be interpreted in many different ways. Until the twentieth century, the Fourth Amendment was of no help to criminal defendants because evidence seized during an unreasonable search was still admissiblein court. Not until Weeks v. United States (1914) was evidence seizedin an unreasonable search deemed inadmissible. Thus was created the exclusionary rule, which states that evidence obtained in violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights cannot be used in a criminal prosecution.
A Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
On 11 January 1988, the case was argued before the Supreme Court and was decided on 16 May 1988. Greenwood's lawyer, Michael Ian Garey, argued that Greenwood had an expectation of privacy regarding the trash that he had placed on the curb in opaque plastic bags, and had assumed would be collected, mixed with other trash, and taken to the dump. In theory, the Fourth Amendment protects people's rights to privacy. Justice White, writing for the majority of six,stated that the expectation of privacy does not guarantee protection by theFourth Amendment unless society considers that expectation to be reasonable.White explained, "It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on orat the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children,scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." Greenwood had placed the bags on the curb in order to convey them to the trash collector, who couldhave sorted through them or allowed the police to do so. Because the bags oftrash were deposited in an area particularly suited for public inspection, the expectation of privacy was not objectively reasonable.
Greenwood's lawyer also argued that the expectation of privacy should be considered reasonable because under the Krivda ruling, searches and seizures of trash, done without warrants, were illegal under California law. He also argued that a California constitutional amendment eliminated the exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of state, but not federal, law. Garey claimed that the California amendment violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning that the government may not deprive anyone oflife, liberty, or property without a fair trial or hearing.
White countered that California could amend its constitution to negate the decision in the Krivda case. He stated that "at the federal level, we have not required that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment be suppressed in all circumstances." White noted that decisions made about excluding evidence, based on the Fourth Amendment, have weighed the benefits ofpreventing police misconduct against the costs of excluding reliable evidence. The Court has declined to apply the exclusionary rule when law officers have acted in good faith and when the benefit to the guilty defendant would go against the basic concepts of the criminal justice system. White suggested that the states could take a similar position balancing the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity against the costs, as long as the police have not violated federal law. Based on these opinions, the majority ruled to reverse the decision of the California Court of Appeals, deciding, along with the "vast majority of lower courts that have addressed the issue," that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection.
Should the Fourth Amendment Protect Garbage?
Justice Brennan wrote the dissenting opinion, in which Justice Marshall joined. Brennan noted, "Scrutiny of another's trash is contrary to commonly accepted notions of civilized behavior . . . Society will be shocked to learn thatthe Court, the ultimate guarantor of liberty, deems unreasonable our expectation that the aspects of our private lives that are concealed safely in a trash bag will not become public." He held that a container that can support a reasonable expectation of privacy may not be searched without a warrant and that a package closed against inspection is protected by the Fourth Amendment. It should make no difference what type of package it is, as long as its contents are concealed. Brennan also pointed out that it should make no differencethat Greenwood used the bags to throw away, rather than to transport, his belongings. Greenwood's decision to throw away the trash does not lessen his expectation of privacy. "A single bag of trash testifies eloquently to the eating, reading and recreational habits of the person who produced it."
Brennan held that, "Most of us, I believe, would be incensed to discover a meddler--whether a neighbor, a reporter, or a detective--scrutinizing our sealed trash containers to discover some detail of our personal lives." However, since occasional intrusions into trash containers do happen, the police cannotbe expected to look away from evidence of criminal activity that anyone could have seen. They must simply adhere to norms of privacy that are generally accepted by society. Just because someone may rummage through a person's trashdoes not mean a person cannot expect privacy. And even though Greenwood wasgetting rid of the trash, it does not follow that he was giving up his expectation of privacy.
Brennan summed up his dissent by stating:

In holding that the warrantless search of Greenwood's trash was consistent with the Fourth Amendment, the Court paints a grim picture of our society . . . The American society with which I am familiar . . . is more dedicated to individual liberty and more sensitive to intrusions on the sanctity of the home than the Court is willing to acknowledge.

Impact
The FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and many police departments regularly search trash. The decision in California v. Greenwood was welcomed by law enforcement agencies and led to even more detectives looking for evidence in this manner.
Civil libertarians objected to the decision. Arthur Spitzer of the American Civil Liberties Union stated in a Time magazine interview, California v. Greenwood "is one more step in squeezing the right to privacy to thepoint where Americans will no longer feel secure against the prying eye of Big Brother."
The decision did not surprise many legal scholars, since the Supreme Court had been taking a narrow view of the right to privacy. People have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding banking records, vehicle location, handwriting, and land visible from public places. Law enforcement officers may inspect these things without a warrant.
In the mid-1990s, the Supreme Court's decision in California v. Greenwood was still being used as the basis for opinions regarding the warrantlesssearching of trash. The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in State v. Hauser (1976) held that a search of a defendant's garbage did not violate theFourth Amendment, even though the garbage was taken from the backyard. Because it was removed during the normal course of trash collection, the defendantlost his expectation of privacy because he knew that the trash collector would take it, and could possibly look through it or give it to someone else. Tomaintain his privacy interest in his trash, the defendant needed to deliver the trash to the dump personally or burn it.
Related Cases

• People v. Krivda, 5 Cal.3d 357 (1971).
  
• United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974).
  
• State v. Hauser, 342 N.C. 382 (1976).
  
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).