[Criminal Procedure] 4. California v. Greenwood

[유보람]

California v. Greenwood 486 U.S. 35, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 100 L.Ed.2D 30 (1988)

I.        Fact

    The plaintiff, the state of California (P), petitioned for review of the California Supreme Court’s decision.  Investigator Jenny Spencer of the Laguna Beach Police Department received information regarding the respondent, Greenwood (D), being engaged in narcotics trafficking.  She learned that a truck carrying illegal drugs was en route to D’s residence, and a neighbor of D complained of heavy vehicular traffic late at night in front of D’s house.  Stracner conducted a surveillance of D’s home that she found several vehicles stopping at the house which then went to a residence that previously had been under investigation as a narcotics-trafficking location.  On 6 April 1984, Stractner searched the plastic garbage bags left in the curb in front of D’s house and found items indicative of narcotics use.  D was arrested on felony narcotics charges based on warrant Stractner secured and subsequently posted bail.  A month later, Investigator Robert Rahaeuser obtained D’s garbage from the trash collector in the same manner as Stracner had done which again contained evidence of narcotics use.  Rahaeuser secured another search warrant for D’s home based on the information from the second trash search.  D was again arrested.

II.       Issue

The question is whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

III.     Rule

O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987)

·       The warrantless search and seizure of the garbage bags left at the curb outside a house would violate the Fourth Amendment only if respondents manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 351 (1967)

·       What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)

·       Our decisions concerning the scope of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule have balanced the benefits of deterring police misconduct against the cost of excluding reliable evidence of criminal activity.

IV.     Application

    D argues that he did not predict his trash, which placed on the street at a fixed time with opaque plastic bags, to be searched by police in terms of an expectation of privacy.  However, an expectation of privacy does not originate from the Fourth Amendment protection unless society is prepared to accept that expectation as objectively reasonable as the O’Connor case states.  It is commonly known that garbage bags left on the street are readily accessible to any member of the public and, therefore, it is highly unlike that the police avert their eyes from criminal evidence observed by the public.  Also, there are plenty of cases holding that society would not accept as reasonable D’s claim to an expectation of privacy in trash left outside the house. 

    D also claims that the warrantless search and seizure of his garbage was impermissible as a matter of California law.  In the Krivda case, the state law right of Californians to privacy in their garbage survived the subsequent state constitutional amendment eliminating the suppression remedy as a means of enforcing that right.  However, as the court mentioned above, society possesses no such understanding about garbage left for collection at a public area.  The Fourth Amendment analysis must turn on factors as “our societal understanding that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from government invasion” stated in Oliver.

     Finally, D urges that the California constitutional amendment eliminating the exclusionary rule for evidence seized in violation of state, not federal, law violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourth Amendment.  The State may hold Krivda and that state law forbids warrantless searches of trash; the court does not require evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment be suppressed in all circumstances.  The scope of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule has been balanced the benefits of deterring police misconduct against the cost of excluding reliable evidence of criminal activity.  Therefore, the court declines to apply the exclusionary rule indiscriminately when law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith or their transgressions have been minor, because the magnitude of the benefit conferred on guilty defendants offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system.  

V.      Conclusion

Reversed and remanded.

VI.     Feedback

1.     D: 주사건이므로 캘리포니아주에서 선례를 찾아야 캘리포니아주 판결을 뒷받침할 수 있다. Greenwood는 본인에게 유리한 사건으로 만들 수 있다.

-> (weakening) 연방대법원은 캘리포니아 주 케이스(Krivda)를 인정하지 않았으므로 중요성이 없다.

2.     Facts

a.     Police warrantless trash search -> find evidence -> secure warrant to search D’s house -> D arrested.

b.     D: Probable cause에 해당하는 evidence(trash)를 확보하기 위한 search에도 warrant가 필요하다. 자기가 버린 쓰레기도 프라이버시 영역이다.
영장 무효화: poisonous doctrine (fruit of illegal search is not accepted)

c.     수정헌법 4조: probable cause가 없으면 warrant 발급 안 된다.

①   A definition of Probable cause: reasonable suspicion보다 확실성 큰 것 conviction 얻기 위한 beyond reasonable doubt 보다는 확실성 적은 것 -> 영장 발부를 위해 필요한 것

beyond reasonable doubt(유죄판결) > probable cause > reasonable suspicion >  hunch(육감, 예감)

d.     쓰레기 가져오려면 영장을 가져와라. -> 범죄와 관련해서 혐의 입증을 할 중요한 증거다. Probable cause.

제보로 영장 발부 받을 수 있을까? (제보자의 신뢰성?)

3.     Issue

a.     쓰레기의 소유권은 누구에게 있나? 쓰레기 가져가면 절도죄인가? No. property ownership관련 majority의 의견과 연계 가능

b.     소유권의 유무에 따른 사생활 보호와 밀접한 연계가 있다. 공개된 장소에 있는 물건은 누구나 access 가능하다. Public에 내놓은 것은 privacy 보호받을 필요가 없다.

c.     -> No. trash was placed on the street for collection at a fixed time with opaque plastic bags, which the garbage collector was expected to pick up.
In dissenting, it cannot be doubted that a sealed bags harbors telling evidence of the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life, which the Fourth Amendment is designed. (소유권과 상관 없이 보호된다.)

d.     Majority: 소유권이 있어야 사생활 보호된다 v. Dissenting: 소유권과 상관 없이 사생활은 남아있다. (해당 사건에서 쓰레기에 소유권이 있다고 주장하진 X)

4.     법원이 state의 의견을 reject했다. 왜?

a.     수정헌법 4조는 property interest가 문제를 settle 하지 않는다고 본다. The court가 소유권의 유무(property law)로 fourth amendment에 privacy를 정하지 않았다.

b.     State는 소유권의 유무와 해당주 판결을 연계시켰으나, federal supreme court는 그 reasoning을 reject한 것. 소유권과 수정헌법 4조는 관계가 없다.