Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
California v. Greenwood
Transcript of California v. Greenwood
Search 2nd Police Search Final Decision: Backgound Police searched through Greenwood's trash again!
The court ruled in his favor. Chief Justice: California V. Greenwood
1988 Samantha Botha
Amanda Corry Police searched Greenwood's trash.
Then got a warrant to search his house. Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten were arrested and released on bail. Laguna Beach Police got word that Greenwood & Van Houten may be selling illegal narcotics. & Van Houten Character Selection: •Billy Greenwood
•Dyanne Van Houten
•Laguna Beach Police
(California) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Prosecutor) The Constitutional Issue: Does the 4th Ammendment prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage? For Arguments Against Greenwood Yes, the 4th Ammendment prohibits warrantless search and seizure of trash. Expected Privacy
Violation of 4th Amendment
Police need probable cause or consent No, the 4th amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage. Gave up right to privacy.
The curb is "easily accessible to the public."
Knew a stranger would take it. William Rehnquist Associate Judges: William J. Brennan, Jr. Byron White Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun John P. Stevens Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy 6-2 Decision ( Kennedy took no part in the case) The court held that under the 4th Amendment, the warrent was not necessary to serach the trash because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Greenwood wanted the evidence excluded but was denied due to an amendment to the California Constitution Dissent Brenton reasoned that “unwelcome meddlers” might rummage through the trash bags “does not negate the expectation of privacy in their contents any more than the possibility of a burglary negates an expectation of privacy in the home.”