California+v.+Greenwood+(1988)

=California v. Greenwood=

California v. Greenwood revolved around a case of drug trafficking. That in itself is insignificant, however. What truly matters was the means used by investigators to acquire the knowledge that suspect Billy Greenwood was indeed dealing with illegal drugs. The case takes place in 1984, as Jenny Stracner of the Laguna Beach Police Department requests for local garbage collectors to bring her the plastic bags from outside Billy Greenwood's single family home, a potential illegal drug seller according to various sources. The sources prove true, as inside the trash, Stracner found traces of illegal drugs. Using this as a major basis, she obtained a warrant to search Greenwood's house. Cocain and marijuana were found inside, and Greenwood was subsequently arrested. He was released on bail. A few months later, the incident repeated itself. Investigators asked garbage collectors to bring them bags from Greenwood's house, drug use was detected from them, and he was again arrested. This time, however, the California Superior Court dismissed the charges on Greenwood. They declared that //both// the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment was violated by the unwarranted garbage scouring. The Supreme Court of California refused to hear an appeal on the case. However, an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was successful. A 6-2 vote from the Justices stated that the 4th Amendment was **//not//** violated by the trash searching because Greenwood had no reasonable expectation of privacy for it. Trash is not a private belonging because it is “readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public". The 4th Amendment, therefore, does not protect it, and no warrant would be necesary to search it at all.

=Connection to Malden=

Although the incident occurred in California and the state itself would be the one to experience the most of the repurcussions from this case, other places are still affected. From this case, the Fourth Amendment's power was more clearly defined, and with a clearer definition it becomes an overall stronger, more solid law that becomes more difficult to find loopholes around.

For us in Malden, that means a more secure sense of safety. With a stronger Fourth Amendment around, and the knowledge that police can easily search trash for signs of drugs to gain a warrant, drug dealers in this area would theoretically have to remain lower than ever. Malden hasn't exactly had [I think] many problems concerning drug trafficking, but the results from this case further ensure that things will remain that way and that drug dealers will never be able to show their face without it getting slammed into a jail cell.



[|Link to full size glog]