Complete the Unit 7 Assignment: How Does Search and Seizure Relate to California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
The ability to think critically is a key skill for success in the criminal justice field. It means not taking what you heard or read at face value, but using your critical thinking faculties to weigh up the evidence, and consider the implications and conclusions of the situation.
Resource: Chapter 10: “Pretrial Activities and the Criminal Trial”
Watch the video of a Mock Trial Flow to understand how a mock trial is conducted and follow this criteria in creating the trial for the assignment.
Texas Y&G Training Videos (Producer). (2014, October 9). Example mock trial flow. [Video Podcast.]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtQDOQM4dM8
Review the details of California v. Greenwood. Compile the facts and witness information for this case. Decide which witnesses could support the prosecution’s case and which witnesses would support the defense’s case. How does search and seizure relate to the California v. Greenwood case?
Review the Following Resources:
JUSTIA US Supreme Court. (2020). California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/35/
Florida Supreme Court. (n.d.). The trash search: Fourth amendment: United States constitution. https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/241730/2135211/TrashSearch06.pdf
Listen to the audio of the oral argument of California v. Greenwood.
Oyez. (n.d.). California v. Greenwood: Oral Argument – January 11, 1988. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-684
Law Library – American Law and Legal Information. (2020). California v. Greenwood: Significance. https://law.jrank.org/pages/24099/California-v-Greenwood-Significance.html
Westlaw. (2020). California V. Greenwood.
Note: You should be logged in to Westlaw in the Purdue Global Library before you access the link above.
Write a 350- to 700-word essay describing the trial process. Include the following in your essay:
A description of the trial process
Examples of opening and closing statements
The types of questions asked on direct examination
Highlight important points for cross-examination
2 minute read
California v. Greenwood
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’s plastic garbage bags, which Greenwood had left for pick-up on the curb. The trash collector did so. Stracner searched through the garbage and found items associated 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 Van Houten 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 from the garbage collector. A search of the rubbish revealed evidence of illegal drug use. Rahaeuser obtained a search warrant, and the police found more drugs and 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 court felt 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 Amendment was 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 admissible in court. Not until Weeks v. United States (1914) was evidence seized in 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.
Additional topics
California v. Greenwood – A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy
Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library – American Law and Legal Information
Notable Trials and Court Cases – 1981 to 1988
California v. Greenwood – Significance, A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy, Should The Fourth Amendment Protect Garbage?, Impact
Copyright © 2020 Web Solutions LLC.
and its Licensors
All Rights Reserved
Terms of Use
Share this article
Fourth Amendment
United States Constitution
“The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and 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.”
The Trash
Search
Case Study Sheet
I. What are the Facts?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
II. State the Issue to be Decided:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
III. Arguments for Petitioner:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
IV. Arguments for Respondent:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
V. What Would You Decide?
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
VI. Reasons/Evaluation:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
VII. Mock Supreme Court Conference Decision:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
VIII. Actual Decision of the Court:
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
The Trash
Search
State of Florida v. Billy Greenwood
The local police believed that Billy Greenwood was selling
drugs. Neighbors complained that cars often came to Billy’s house
late at night and stayed for only a short time. A police informant also
told the police that Billy was expecting a large shipment of drugs to
arrive by truck. The police watched Billy’s house and saw cars come
and go throughout the night. The police also saw a truck leave the
house. The police followed the truck to another house, which was
known to be a drug dealing location.
Police investigator Jenny Scott had been working on the case
for several months. One day, she asked the trash collector for Billy’s
neighborhood if he would give her Billy’s trash without mixing it
together with anyone else’s trash. When Officer Scott looked in
Billy’s trash, she found evidence related to drug use. Officer Scott
used this evidence to get a search warrant to search Billy’s house.
When the police searched Billy’s house, they found large amounts of
cocaine. Billy was arrested on felony drug charges.
Billy’s case went to the circuit court. There, Billy’s attorney
argued that the search of Billy’s trash without a warrant was unlawful
and that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The attorney argued that
because the trash search led to the search of Billy’s house, the
evidence that the police got from Billy’s house should not be allowed
as evidence at trial. The circuit court agreed with Billy’s attorney and
decided that the trash search without a warrant was unlawful. The
State appealed the decision to the District Court of Appeal. The
district court agreed with the circuit court’s decision that the trash
search was unlawful. Now the State has appealed to the Florida
Supreme Court, which will hear oral argument in this case.
The Trash
Search
Constitutional Question
Did the police violate Billy Greenwood’s Fourth Amendment
rights by searching through his trash without a warrant?
The Trash
Search
Petitioner Arguments
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS
_____________ AND I REPRESENT THE PETITIONER,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA. EVEN THOUGH THE POLICE
DID NOT HAVE A WARRANT TO SEARCH BILLY’S
TRASH, THE SEARCH DID NOT VIOLATE BILLY’S
FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
The State’s Arguments (for the warrantless trash search)
include:
1. Billy did not own his trash anymore. He threw his trash away.
Anyone could have gone through his trash and found the
evidence.
2. The Fourth Amendment did not apply in Billy’s case because the
trash was out in public. Since the trash was in a place where
anyone could look inside it, it was okay for the police to search it.
3. Billy had no right to privacy in his trash. His trash was not
protected by the Fourth Amendment, and the police did not need
a search warrant to search it.
4. If he wanted to keep his trash private, he could have gotten rid of it
in a different way than putting it out on the street where anyone
could have gotten to it.
5. Since Billy gave his trash away and never planned to get it
back, he cannot now say that it was his private property.
6. Since the police did have a search warrant for the house,
anything that came from the house should be used as evidence.
Try to think of other arguments in favor of warrantless trash
searches. Write these arguments on the note pad at your seat.
The Trash
Search
Respondent Arguments
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS
_________________ AND I REPRESENT THE
RESPONDENT, BILLY. BECAUSE THE POLICE DID NOT
HAVE A WARRANT TO SEARCH BILLY’S TRASH, THE
SEARCH VIOLATED BILLY’S FOURTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS .
Billy’s Arguments (against the warrantless trash search)
include:
1. Billy’s trash is his personal property and it cannot be invaded just
because the police want to look in it.
2. The Fourth Amendment clearly says that a person’s things and
property are protected from unreasonable searches, and this trash
was Billy’s property.
3. If the police had a good reason to believe that Billy had drugs, they
could have gotten a search warrant for the trash.
4. The police could have found something that belonged to Billy that
Billy didn’t want anyone else to see and had nothing to do with
drugs.
5. If the court rules that it was fair to search Billy’s trash without a
warrant because it was out in public, then the police will start
looking in our mailboxes or unlocked cars without getting warrants.
6. Billy did not expect his trash to be searched by the police.
He thought that it was going to the dump with all the other
trash. It made sense for Billy to think that his trash was private.
Try to think of other arguments against warrantless trash
searches. Write these arguments on the note pad at your seat.
The Trash
Search
Sample Questions for Justices
Questions to ask the Petitioner (State of Florida)
1. Why didn’t the officers get a search warrant?
2. Shouldn’t the police be required to have a warrant before they go through
someone’s belongings?
3. Why doesn’t the Fourth Amendment apply to Billy’s case?
4. If we rule that searching someone’s garbage without a warrant is okay,
how can we make sure that police will not go through our mail or search
other property like unlocked cars?
Try to think of other questions for the attorneys who are in favor of
warrantless trash searches. Write these questions on the note pad
at your seat.
Questions to ask the Respondent (Billy Greenwood):
1. Does the Fourth Amendment apply in Billy’s case? Why?
2. Why should this Court worry about whether Billy might have wanted to
keep something in his trash private?
3. Why should the officer have been required to get a search warrant if the
trash was out on the street?
4. Isn’t it possible for anyone to get into Billy’s trash since it was
outside and ready to be collected?
Try to think of other questions for the attorneys who are against
warrantless trash searches. Write these questions on the note pad at
your seat.
The Trash
Search
Marshal’s Script
(You must call Court to order in a very loud voice.)
All rise.
Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye!
The Supreme Court of Florida is now in session.
All who have cause to plea, draw near, give attention, and you
shall be heard.
God save these United States, this great State of Florida, and
this honorable Court.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Florida Supreme Court.
Please be seated.
The Trash
Search
Chief Justice’s Script
The Court is ready to hear the case of
State of Florida v. Billy Greenwood.
Are the attorneys ready to proceed?
Attorneys for the Petitioner may begin.
_____________
[When the Clerk calls time, you tell the petitioner’s
attorneys that their time is up. If the attorneys are in the
middle of an answer when time is called, then you can
tell them that they may briefly finish their answer.]
Attorneys for the Respondent may begin.
_____________
[When the Clerk calls time, you tell the respondent’s
attorneys that their time is up. If the attorneys are in the
middle of an answer when time is called, then you can
tell them that they may briefly finish their answer.]
Attorneys for the Petitioner may present rebuttal.
_____________
[When the Clerk calls time, you tell the petitioner’s
attorneys that their time is up. If the attorneys are in the
middle of an answer when time is called, then you can
tell them that they may briefly finish their answer.]
Attorneys, thank you for your arguments. The Court
will announce its decision shortly.
The Trash
Search
Vote Sheet
Votes:
Chief Justice Lewis ____________ ____________
Petitioner/State Respondent/Billy
Justice Wells ____________ ____________
Petitioner/State Respondent/Billy
Justice Anstead ____________ ____________
Petitioner/State Respondent/Billy
Justice Pariente ____________ ____________
Petitioner/State Respondent/Billy
Justice Quince ____________ ____________
Petitioner/State Respondent/Billy
Justice Cantero ____________ ____________
Petitioner/State Respondent/Billy
Justice Bell ____________ ____________
Petitioner/State Respondent/Billy
The Trash
Search
Clerk
(place on Clerk’s desk)
After the arguments, the Justices will vote on the case.
Count the votes for the Petitioner (State of Florida) and
Respondent (Billy).
READ:
The Florida Supreme Court has reached a decision in this
case. By a vote of _____________ to _____________ the
Court rules in favor of the ___________________.
The Trash
Search
Court Decisions
California v. Greenwood (1988)
Available at http://laws.findlaw.com/us/486/35.html
In this case, the police believed that Billy Greenwood was involved
with drugs. Acting on information it got from an informant and a neighbor,
the police seized two garbage cans left on the curb of Greenwood’s home.
Because the items inside the garbage can showed possible drug use, the
police got a search warrant to search Greenwood’s home. The search of
Greenwood’s home showed that Greenwood possessed several controlled
substances.
The trial court ruled that the probable cause utilized to search
Greenwood’s home was obtained through a warrantless search of his
garbage that violated Greenwood’s Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore,
the trial court dismissed the charges against Greenwood.
The State of California appealed the issue to the state’s Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.
When the California Supreme Court refused to review the Court of
Appeals’s decision, the State of California asked the United States Supreme
Court to step in. The U.S. Supreme Court did, and it reversed the Court of
Appeals’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that since Greenwood
had no expectation of privacy in his garbage, it was not protected under the
Fourth Amendment. The warrantless search of his garbage was completely
legal.
The Trash
Search