California v. Greenwood VI

Greenwood did not win his case for one key reason. One cannot place trash out onto a public street, open to any passer-byes, with an expectation that it will not be looked through. Especially with Greenwood's drug trafficking, he should have known better than to place evidence-containing trash outside of his home. "Finding the probable cause to search the house would not have existed without the evidence obtained from the trash searches, the State Superior Court dismissed the charges under People v. Krivda, 5 Cal.3d 357, 486 P.2d 1262, which held that warrantless trash searches violate the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution. Although noting a post-Krivda state constitutional amendment eliminating the exclusionary rule for evidence seized in volation of state, but not federal law, the State Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground that Krivda was based on federal, as well as state, law." - http://www.fightidentitytheft.com/shred_supreme_court.html

"The court stated that 'the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public.' So the court decided that even though Greenwood had subjective expectation of privacy in those bags, this privacy was not objectively reasonable." - http://www.4lawschool.com/greenwood.htm 

California v. Greenwood V

The final argument of Greenwood was his contention that the California Constitutional amendment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, this too was found without merit. "Just as this Court's Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decisions have not required suppression where the benefits of deterring minor police misconduct were overbalanced by the societal costs of exclusion, California was not foreclosed by the Due Process Clause from concluding that the benefits of excluding the relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs when the police conduct at issue does not violate federal law." - http://fightidentitytheft.com/shred_supreme_court.html With that, all of Greenwood's arguments were rejected. "An amendment to the California Constitution, however, had eliminated the exclusionary rule for unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The Court rejected Greenwood's claim that the amendment violated the Due Process Clause. It held that so long as the police conduct did not violate federal law, 'California could permissibly conclude that the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs.'" - http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/California_v._Greenwood 

California v. Greenwood IV

Greenwood's second argument was that the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage violated the California law under Krivda. His alternative argument that his expectation of privacy in his garbage should be deemed reasonable as a matter of Federal Constitutional law is without merit. "The reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes does not depend upon privacy concepts embodied in the law of the particular State in which the search occurred; rather, it turns upon the understanding of society as a whole that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion. There is no such understanding with respect to garbage left for collection at the side of a public street." - http://www.fightidentitytheft.com/shred_supreme_court.html So, Greenwood's alternative argument was rejected. "Quoting Katz v. United States, the court concluded that "what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." - http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/California_v._Greenwood

"The court of Appeal affirmed. 182 Cal. App. 3d 729, 227 Cal. Rptr. 539 (1986). The court noted at the outset that the fruits of warrantless trash searches could no longer be suppressed if Krivda were based only on the California Constitution, because since 1982 the State has barred the suppression of evidence seized in violation of California law but not federal law."  - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=486&invol=35  

California v. Greenwood III

I am in California’s defense in the California v. Greenwood case.
It is clear that the narcotic distributing of Greenwood was obvious and open for investigation. The rising suspicion that Greenwood had been trafficking narcotics was more than enough probable cause to search through his garbage. Had Greenwood’s trafficking been less obvious, I would argue in favor of Greenwood. “Since respondents voluntarily left their trash for collection in an area particularly suited for public inspection, their claimed expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items they discarded was not objectively reasonable. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left along a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through it or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. The police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public.” - http://www.fightidentitytheft.com/shred_supreme_court.html

"The assert, however, that they had, and exhibited, an expectation of privacy with respect to the trash that was searched by the police: The trash, which was placed on the street for collection at a fixed time, was contained in opaque plastic bags, which the garbage collector was expected to pick up, mingle with the trash of others, and deposit at the garbage dump. The trash was only temporarily on the street, and there was little likelihood that it would be inspected by anyone." ... "An expectation of privacy does not give rise to Fourth Amendment protection, however, unless society is prepared to accept that expectation as objectively reasonable." - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=486&invol=35 
In today's court, this case's decision would be the same. Greenwood's faulty decision to put trash out for collection with signs of narcotic trafficking resulted in his conviction. In no way, shape or form were the police that searched Greenwood's trash and home in the wrong. Narcotics trafficking is illegal. If Greenwood had not placed his trash out onto the public street, the police would not have been allowed to go through it. Ultimately, Greenwood's conviction was his own fault.

The First Monday Of October

Pornography sure has changed over time. In the 1970s, one would have to go to a certain theatre to see pornographic videos. Today, in 2009, any person can find any completely explicit pornographic videos by simply searching the web. In fact, now-a-days, people can even make their own videos directly on their computers and send them to websites such as, youporn. Many people, men and women alike, are disturbed by such explicit material. But times have changed. In today’s society the mainstream music is ruled by explicit rap lyrics about sex and violence. The question is - does our society value security or freedom more? Undoubtedly, this has been the question throughout time.
My stand on the matter is that freedom is more valuable than security. Sure, morals are important but our country was based on freedom. Every person in our country has a right to do whatever they want as long as it does not harm anyone physically in the process. Pornography is explicit material. If one is so offended by such material, they should not choose to watch it. Pornography is certainly not forced upon anyone. With the development of the internet, pornography has become completely unavoidable and so what? Most people know what occurs in the bedroom behind closed doors. If watching pornography is your thing, so be it. Everyone has a right to do what makes them happy. Who is to say what material is too explicit for one to observe?

Illicit The Movie

I have and still continue to engage in illicit activities every day. I am still a constant music downloader and, most likely, always will be. I have also been given one or two counterfeit bags that actually came from Hong Kong. After watching the video I do not feel so inclined to engage in such illicit activities. Though I will continue to download music, I will definitely not be owning or purchasing any counterfeit merchandise no matter how good of a fake it may be. Not only is it a disgrace to the entire fashion world to own such merchandise but I also learned about what it really does under the surface. The most disturbing part about the video for me, perhaps, was the modern day slavery. I honestly had no clue that such activity occurred today. After this video, I will forever look down on people that buy, create or sell counterfeit goods and will support them no longer. Especially in a large city like Las Vegas, you see this every day. Fake handbags, clothing, medicine is everywhere. It is no longer cool to me that I could get an exact Gucci replica purse for so much cheaper than it is actually sold. The reality is that counterfeit merchandise hurts not only the world’s economy but the world’s people as well.

California v. Greenwood II

I feel that I am really coming to understand the Supreme Court Case of California v. Greenwood. In the case, I feel that both sides have an arguable point. Greenwood's defensive case is that the search of his trash outside on his curb was unconstitutional according to the Fourth and Fifteenth Amendments. The fourth amendment reads, "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." -U.S. Constitution However, the fourth amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the front of a home. "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." -http://law.jrank.org/pages/13057/California-v-Greenwood.html Greenwood also argued that the California constitutional amendment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. California, however, found this to be incorrect. "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." - http://law.jrank.org/pages/13057/California-v-Greenwood.html For next week, I plan to prepare a good case in California’s defense. I feel that the search of Greenwood’s garbage was, in fact, constitutional and that search was done with probable cause. Greenwood did however present to the court a good point which led Americans to once again question the wording of the U.S. Constitution.

California v. Greenwood

The case I have chosen for my Legal Brief is California v. Greenwood. This case was argued January 11, 1988 and decided May 16, 1988. On the petitioner’s side was the State of California. On the respondent side was Billy Greenwood. Billy Greenwood was a suspected narcotics trafficker. Acting on this information, police obtained objects indicative of narcotic use from trash bags left out on Greenwood’s curb outside of his home. After these findings, police obtained warrants to search Greenwood’s home and discovered controlled substances cocaine and marijuana and arrested respondents on felony charges. Finding enough information to search Greenwood’s home would not have been possible had the police not searched through his garbage. The State Supreme Court dismissed Greenwood’s charges due to the fact that warrantless trash searches violate the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution. However, on Federal levels, Greenwood lost his case due to the fact that no warrant is necessary to search through Greenwood’s trash, which was placed on a public street. "Also without merit is Greenwood's contention that the California constitutional amendment violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Just as this Court's Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decisions have not required suppression where the benefits of deterring minor police misconduct were overbalanced by the societal costs of exclusion, California was not foreclosed by the Due Process Clause from concluding that the benefits of excluding relevant evidence of criminal activity do not outweigh the costs when the police conduct at issue does not violate federal law."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0486_0035_ZS.html
Also against Greenwood, website, http://law.jrank.org/pages/13057/California-v-Greenwood.html states, "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.'"
I chose to do my Legal Brief on California v. Greenwood because it is of great interest to me. I find cases involving the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution very interesting due to their sensitivity. Very little mistakes of unconstitutional search and seizure by the police can cause all charges of the respondent to be dropped.

Smash-Me Hilton

Doesn't it bother you that a good portion of America's wealth goes to those that don't even deserve it? I, personally, strongly dislike that celebrities like Paris Hilton are famous for absolutely nothing. She doesn't even make music or play sports and is still filthy rich with cameras following her around in her Mazerati all day long. If you're with me on this one, you may enjoy the Smash-Me Hilton doll. This is a little model of Paris Hilton that comes complete with a hammer so you can smash away all the glitz and money that is Paris Hilton. Wish no longer. Grab a Smash-Me Hilton today.

Greed Is Good

The phrase, “Greed Is Good” is highly rated among phrases from all around the world. However, my opinion about the phrase is much different. I have been raised to believe that people do not benefit, in the end, from greed but from helping those around us. “Many people in the United States have an entreprenueurial spirit that encourages them to pursue the ‘American Dream’ of owning and operating their own business. However, there are numerous responsibilities and decisions that come with accomplishing this objective.” (Essentials Of Business Law, Liuzzo, Pg. 265) Throughout time, in America, while the chance to gain wealth is high, not very many people begin from the bottom and work their way to the top. In America, the wealthy continue to get wealthier while the rest of us maintain the level of wealth we began with. It works this way because wealth is achieved two ways in America: Hard work or inheritance. In the movie, Wall Street, Gekko states, “One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit.” This is a very true statement still today in America. On account of only one third of wealth comes from hard work, it is very easy to see why I feel that Greed is, in fact, not good. “The major disadvantage of a sole proprietorship is the fact that the owner of the establishment has unlimited liability, which means that the owner is personally liable for all of the legal debts and obligations of the business. (Essentials Of Business Law, Liuzzo, Pg. 265) This is the large disadvantage of a Sole Proprietorship but many company owners have found ways around these legal debts and obligations which is part of the problem with greed. Greed causes people like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and several other no-brained celebrities to continue to gain wealth while the rest of us sit and wait for the day to come when we may see money. Greed gets you money, yes, but it does no common good for the people around us. After all, don’t you find it more important for people that work hard to gain wealth than those who gain it by inheritance?

Used Cars Crimes

Group: Roland, Michael, Jon, Hannah
1. Bribery
2. False Advertising
3. Sexual Harassment
4. Perjury
5. Destruction of Property
6. Lying Under Oath
7. Underage Driving
8. 250 Counts of Driving without License
9. Speeding
10. Hit & Run
11. Trespassing
12. Assault with Deadly Weapon
13. No Seatbelts
14. Reckless Driving
15. Child Endangerment
16. Misrepresentation
17. Libel
18. Slander
19. Defamation
20. Conversion

"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas"

The “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” case is one that, honestly, made me a little bit disgusted. This case came about when a grandmother bought her fourteen year old grandson a copy of “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.” Frankly, everyone knows that the Grand Theft Auto games are known for intense violence and criminal activity, including murder. “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” particularly came out in October 2004 and was rated “M” for Mature. The “M” means that the game is for those who are seventeen years of age and older. Florence Cohen’s grandson was not seventeen. After a flow of negative publicity from the sexual hidden scenes, the Entertainment Software Rating Board changed the rating to “AO”, which means, Adults Only.
After purchasing the game, Florence was completely shocked and horrified to find out that the game had some sexual hidden scenes in it. She was so outraged by the game that she felt it necessary to sue the company that created the game, Rockstar Games. Cohen’s lawyer said that no parent would knowingly buy their child a video game that was for Adults Only. The lawsuit was successful and Cohen won her case.
Rockstar games decided to cooperate with the probe and pleaded guilty. “Rockstar Games and Take Two Interactive regret that consumers may have been exposed to content that was not intended to be accessible in the playable version of ‘Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas’,” it said in a statement. “Going forward, the company will refine the process by which it edits games and will enhance the protection of its game code to prevent such future modifications,” it said. Rockstar games said it had ceased production of the game in the controversial form and were working on a version of the game with sexual content, suitable for an “M” rating.
The House voted 355-21 for a resolution which asked the FTC to investigate the company. Sen. Hillary Clinton then asked the FTC to investigate Rockstar games, saying that the company had “gamed the ratings system” by concealing sex scenes in the game that can be unlocked by computer programs available on the Internet. Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy and Circuit City have pulled “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” — 2005’s top-seller among console games — from their shelves following the rating change.

Response To Flip Beats Productions

Flip Beats Productions seems to have dealt with lawyers in the past. I feel that their feelings towards lawyers are relevant and almost in sync with my own. Their experience with lawyers in the past has brought them to feel both positively and negatively towards lawyers. "I hate to stereotype, but the criminal lawyers I have come across were very keniving, a bit sneaky, cold-hearted, with some sort of agenda," says Flip Beats. I think we all feel this way and though it might be stereotyping, hey, it is their job. See, lawyers are supposed to be that way. If they were not, they would not be any good at what they do. One has to be keniving, or what I would call persuasive in order to be a lawyer. Some of the most problematic kids grow up to become phenomenal lawyers. "There are many lawyers who really want to help you and there are those who just want your money," states Flip Beats. If I may recall my own writing, I also believe that some lawyers really do want to help you and look forward to working with them in the future. I agree with most of Flip Beats Productions' opinions and would say they probably have the correct idea about lawyers in general.

MySpace Hoax

The case of Megan Meier is most definitely a very sad and tragic one. The creator of "Josh's" MySpace profile was charged with a three felonies on four counts of computer fraud. I do feel that the creator of "Josh's" profile was wrong and rather sick to do what she had done. Had the creator been another teenage girl, the incident still would have been sickening but not quite has harsh as it seems due to the fact that the profile was created by another teenage girl's MOTHER. If you are the mother of a teenage girl, you should not still be interested in petty middle school bullshit. Not only did her actions cause a young girl to kill herself, they also set a horrible example for her own daughter. "The term false pretenses describes a broad category of crimes that involve activities intended to deceive others by making false claims..." (Ch. 3, Pg. 34, Business Law Sixth Edition, Liuzzo) I feel this is relevent because "Josh" was a false claim, along with everything "he" said to Megan. The whole page was created with an intent to deceive Megan Meier. Megan's death was most definitely accidental. We all know that "Josh's" creator did not mean to kill young Megan but it still happened. I feel that the accident could have easily been avoided. "But the concept of unavoidable accident is intended to focus attention on whether an accident could have been avoided if the person alleged to be responsible had acted reasonably." (Ch. 4, Pg. 51, Essentials of Business Law Sixth Edition, Liuzzo) In no way were "Josh's" mean messages supposed to lead Megan to kill herself, however, "Josh" knew that Megan was depressed. I suppose that to really feel as strongly as I do about this case, you have to understand the psychology of a teenage girl. Teenage girls are very mean to each other and say nasty things about one another all the time. Being a teenager is a very vulnerable time in one's life - you feel like you don't fit in, people judge and pick at you constantly, you are uncomfortable in your own skin, you feel like you can trust no one. This is why so many teenage girls face depression. Every woman knows what it is like to be a teenage girl, which is why it so hard for me to understand why "Josh" did the things she did. In this case, "Josh" was charged with 3 felonies and 4 counts of computer fraud. I feel that she was correctly accused and should be in trouble for doing what she has done.

Lawyers

How do I feel about lawyers? Most people, when asked this question, would give you an angry, hateful response. A lot of people are not too fond of lawyers and usually crack jokes at their expense. However, I feel differently. I have never had a bad experience with any lawyer. Maybe that is because I have never had to go to court and have never run into any problems with the law. I, being only eighteen years old, have yet to even receive a speeding ticket. So, for now, I am alright with lawyers.
Being just “alright” with lawyers will probably change for me as I grow older and branch out into the business world. My plans after receiving my degree are to open up a “head-shop” (or whatever you would like to call a store for smoking devices and clothing) which means I will most likely become rather fond of lawyers over the next few years. I go around and talk to many owners of shops like the one I intend to own one day to see what it is like. Most of my responses are “It’s very difficult.” I have heard from several store owners that the law likes to come and “mess with” your company due to the merchandise sold and the lifestyle advocated by these shops. I could see how this would make my future career difficult.
So, by being “messed with” by the laws, the police, the FEDs, whatever you would like to call them, I will have to encounter many lawyers. With several Californian lawyers on my side, I think I will do just fine with my business. Today, the laws have changed a great deal making it easier to own a store that provides smoking devices and “counter-culture-influenced” clothing. It will be difficult to run a business like the one I choose to run as long as marijuana is illegal. With new open-minded medical marijuana laws being passed more frequently and a more accepting generation up and coming, I hope my business will become more acceptable.
So do I like lawyers? Not necessarily. But I do feel that they will help me in the future.