Stracner got a further tip from an informant that a load of illegal drugs was on its way to Greenwood’s residence in Laguna Beach, CA. The tip was given to a federal drug enforcement agent in February of 1984 and relayed to Stracner. There had also been complaints from neighbors of a lot of heavy traffic activity in front of the residence late in the evenings. It was noted that these heavy vehicles only remained at the residence for a short period of time, which raised suspicions. In order to investigate these complaints, surveillance of the Greenwood’s home was necessary. Observations were made of several heavy vehicles making late evening and early morning stops in front of the residence. Stracner was able to follow one of the vehicles to another residence that had been the target of another investigation for trafficking of narcotics. It wasn’t until April that Stracner had collected enough evidence to prompt a request that the neighborhoods regular trash collectors pick up the plastic bags that Greenwood left on the curb. She further asked him to turn the bags over to her taking much care not to mix the contents with any garbage from other houses. The trash collector proceeded to do as Stracner instructed and turned the designated bags over to her. Officer Stracner then searched the garbage in the bags and found items that were pertinent to narcotics use. She then conveyed the information that she had found within the trash in order to obtain a warrant to search Greenwood’s home. When the warrant was served at Greenwood’s home, both suspects were present from both residences. They discovered quantities of Cocaine and Hashish during the search of the home. Both suspects were arrested on felony narcotics charges. The police received further reports of late night visits to Greenwood’s house. On May 4, 1984 Investigator Robert Rahaeuser again obtained garbage from the regular trash collector at Greenwood’s home in the same manner as Stracner. Again the collected garbage was searched and evidence of narcotics use was found. Rahaeuser used the information to obtain another search warrant of Greenwood’s house. More evidence was found that indicated narcotics trafficking and Greenwood was arrested again. Based on the evidence collected from the garbage Greenwood was convicted of the drug-related charges. Based on the conviction, Greenwood appealed the decision to the Supreme Court claiming that Stacner and Rahaeuser had searched his garbage without a warrant making it an illegal search. The Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of trash left for pickup outside the immediate perimeter or curtilage of a home. The Conclusion: The ruling was determined to be influenced by the majority of the lower courts that have addressed the issue in the past, that it does not. Justice White delivered the majority opinion with a 6-2 vote. It held that, “the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.” He further interjected that (a) Since the suspects voluntarily left their garbage for collection in an area that was commonly suited for public inspection, the claim of expectation of privacy in relation to the items discarded was not objectively reasonable. It was concluded that it was common knowledge that plastic trash bags left along a public street are easily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and any other member of the public. It was also noted that when the suspects placed their trash at the curb for the purpose of giving it to a third party, the trash collector, it could have been sorted through
Cite this document
(“US Supreme Court Case: California v. Greenwood Challenges the Fourth Research Paper”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/philosophy/51412-us-supreme-court-case-searches-and-seizures
(US Supreme Court Case: California V. Greenwood Challenges the Fourth Research Paper)
“US Supreme Court Case: California V. Greenwood Challenges the Fourth Research Paper”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/philosophy/51412-us-supreme-court-case-searches-and-seizures.
Cited: 0 times
It was early in 1984, Investigator Jenny Stracner received a tip that a certain person of suspicion may be involved in narcotics trafficking. Stracner got a further tip from an informant that a load of illegal drugs was on its way to Greenwood’s residence in Laguna Beach, CA. …
This is accomplished by barring any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection from use at trial. Like other amendments that constitute the Bill of rights, it was written and ratified to protect they citizenry against overweening government, but none of those amendments are self-enforcing.
No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Levy 1995, p. 162) The fourth amendment was adopted in response to the tendencies of police officers to abuse their search and seizure responsibilities during the colonial period.
The provisions of the amendment require the judicial authorities’ warrant for the police officials or authorities to search over a personal property. This amendment was introduced to prevent the officials from the misuse of writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant in the States.
The United States legal system is no different from other legal systems of the world as it has also gone through a number of reforms and amendments. The Investor Words (2011) explains that an amendment is “a change or addition to a legal document which, when properly signed, has the same legal power as the original document.” Years of such legal hassle and tussle has resulted in a law known as the search and seizure law in the United States.
This observance of this constitutional right gains greater significance if the government interest sought to be served by the administrative decision is lacking in urgency and importance. In this discussion, a brief account of the facts of the case is presented, followed by a discussion of the qualification of the case for judicial review pursuant to the ripeness, standing, exhaustion of remedies, and primary jurisdiction.
1927 U.S. Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell Abstract Buck v Bell, the notorious judgment of 1927 justified Virginia’s sterilization law authorizing compulsory sterilization of those whose off-springs were genetically pre-disposed to inherit their mental retardation and such other mental disabilities.
Since its enactment, rules have been made regarding the amendment and the most important rule is the warrant rule.
The Fourth Amendment is a change that was made to the constitution of the United Sates of America and
Hulteen 1). The matter in controversy is clear, if the employer does not give an employee full pension benefit by excluding the time of pregnancy leave on the ground that when the employee took pregnancy leave, the PDA
The United States legal system is no different from other legal systems of the world as it has also gone through a number of reforms and amendments. The Investor Words (2011) explains that an amendment is “a
The tip was given to a federal drug enforcement agent in February of 1984 and relayed to Stracner. There had also been complaints from neighbors of a lot of heavy traffic activity in front of the residence late in the evenings.
4 pages (1000 words)Research Paper
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Research Paper on topic US Supreme Court Case: California v. Greenwood Challenges the Fourth Amendment Privacy of Search and Seizure for FREE!