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.