California v. Greenwood Case Brief: Warrantless Search of Trash and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Case Brief: California v. Greenwood

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Citation: 486 U.S. 35 (1988)
Argued: April 26, 1988
Decided: June 13, 1988

---

Facts:

In California v. Greenwood, police officers suspected that the defendant, Greenwood, was involved in drug-related activities. They obtained information indicating that Greenwood might be selling drugs from his home. The police, without a warrant, seized Greenwood’s garbage bags left at the curb for collection by the garbage truck. Upon inspecting the trash, the officers discovered evidence that they believed indicated drug trafficking, including plastic bags, containers with drug residue, and records of drug sales. Based on this evidence, the police obtained a search warrant for Greenwood's home, where they found drugs and drug paraphernalia. Greenwood was arrested, and the evidence was used in his trial.

Greenwood moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his trash, arguing that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his garbage without a warrant.

Issues:

1. Whether the warrantless search of Greenwood’s trash violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
2. Whether Greenwood had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his trash once it was left outside for collection.

Holding:

The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 decision that the warrantless search of Greenwood’s trash did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that once the trash was left at the curb for collection, it was exposed to the public and no longer afforded the protection of privacy.

Legal Reasoning:

• Expectation of Privacy: The Court, in an opinion written by Justice White, focused on whether Greenwood had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash. The Court concluded that when Greenwood placed his garbage bags at the curb for collection, he exposed them to the public, including garbage collectors and passersby. Therefore, he no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his trash.

• Public Exposure: The Court reasoned that the contents of the trash were easily accessible to the public and that anyone, including the garbage collectors and police officers, could have legally accessed the trash without violating the Fourth Amendment. The Court emphasized that the Fourth Amendment does not protect information voluntarily exposed to the public, and trash placed in a public area for collection falls within this category.

• Contrast with Prior Cases: The Court contrasted this case with prior decisions where the Fourth Amendment had been found to apply to private areas, such as the home, or to situations where the government used more intrusive methods of surveillance. Since the police did not physically trespass on Greenwood's property to obtain the trash and instead merely retrieved it from a publicly accessible area, the Court found no Fourth Amendment violation.

• Legal Precedent: The Court cited its decision in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), where it ruled that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone numbers dialed from a landline. Similarly, in Greenwood, there was no expectation of privacy in the trash left for public collection.

Dissenting Opinion:

• Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented, arguing that the search of Greenwood's trash violated his reasonable expectation of privacy. Brennan contended that people do not generally expect their garbage to be searched by police and that garbage at the curb is still within the curtilage of the home, which should be afforded some level of privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that warrantless searches of trash left on the curb for collection do not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court found that once trash is placed in a publicly accessible area, individuals lose their reasonable expectation of privacy in it. The evidence obtained from the trash search was therefore admissible in Greenwood's criminal trial.

---

List of Cases Cited:

1. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - Held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed from a telephone, as they are exposed to the phone company.
2. United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) - No expectation of privacy in movements of a vehicle monitored by a beeper in public spaces.
3. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) - Held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in records held by third parties, such as banks.

---

Similar Cases:

1. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) - Clarified the “curtilage” of the home and emphasized the expectation of privacy in areas immediately surrounding a home.
2. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) - Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test for Fourth Amendment protections.
3. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) - Aerial surveillance from a public space does not violate the Fourth Amendment when no reasonable expectation of privacy exists.