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.