California v. Greenwood was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It was argued on January 11, 1988 and was decided on May 16, 1988. The case was about whether police could search through trash bags on the curb without a warrant. Local police suspected that a man by the name of Billy Greenwood was dealing drugs from his place of residence. The police could not obtain a warrant from a judge to search his house because of a lack of evidence. The police asked the neighborhood trash collector to pick up the garbage bags. In the trash bags, police found evidence of drug use, which they used to acquire a warrant to search Greenwood’s house. The police uncovered illegal substances in Greenwood’s house and the police arrested …show more content…
When does a person's garbage bags become public property? Can a person have a reasonable expectation of privacy for items at the curb which is in public view? Can evidence gained from a search of garbage bags at the curbside be used as probable cause for a warrant? Is it lawful for public employees such as a mailman or a trash collector to gather information for the police? A person’s trash becomes public property when it is left at the curb of a house for collection by the city employees. Since garbage bags left at the curb of a public street are readily accessible to many different people such as children, scavengers, snoops, and animals, a warrant to search an area which the public has easy access to is not required. A person cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy if they leave their anything on the curbside of their home. The person gives up control of the items by putting it out for collection. They leave it for a public employee, who is also a stranger, to pick it up and dispose of it. The trash is now in public view and can be accessed by any member of the general public. If anything is in plain view of the public, there can be no expectation of
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
The officers began to search the apartment without a warrant. As the officers continued searching, one of them (Officer Nelson) found some expensive stereo equipment. The officer had a hunch that the equipment was stolen, so he moved the stereos to record the serial numbers. He then called police headquarters and it was confirmed that indeed the stereo equipment had been stolen. The officers then seized the stereo equipment.
One July afternoon in 1931 on a cloudy and cool afternoon a police officer walks in the local areas detective office. The officer sets a dirty folder with a big brown splotch on it, which seems to be a coffee stain. Inside the stained folder contains 2 printed pages of check copies. The detective puts on a bewildered face and wonders what he is supposed to accomplish with the unsolvable papers. Little does the detective know he has a long road ahead of him on discovering the unsolved mystery of Lawrence Exeter Jr.
Laci Peterson, a 27-year-old wife who was eight months pregnant, disappeared on December 24, 2002. When the body of the California woman and her unborn child were found four months later, her husband, Scott, was charged with two counts of murder. Detective Craig Grogan gave a sworn statement that he had probable cause to believe Mr. Peterson committed two counts of the crime of 187 Penal Code, homicide, on or about December 23, 2002 or December 24,2002, in the county of Stanislaus. April 17, 2003 at 0658 hours the Judge of the Superior Court in Stanislaus County, California issued a warrant for the arrest of Scott Lee Peterson. The court found that the District Attorney’s office did, in fact, have probable cause to bring Scott Peterson in. The Judge specifically addressed bail in the warrant. No bail was granted. April 18, 2003 at 1110 hours, Scott Peterson was arrested at the Torrey Pines Golf Course, in Sand Diego County, California. At the time of his arrest, Peterson had colored his hair blonde, grown a beard and mustache, and was carrying $15,000.00 in cash. During his arrest police also discovered that Peterson’s car was full of camping and survival equipment. Peterson was arrested less than 20 minutes from the Mexican border. Peterson waived booking in San Mateo County, California, and was transferred back to Stanislaus County, California, where he was formally booked by the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department.
On June 26, 2006, a Sheriff Officer of the State of Florida, William Wheetley and his drug detection dog, Aldo, were on patrol. Furthermore, Officer Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of the defendant Clayton Harris for expired tags on his truck. As Officer Wheetley approached the truck, he noticed that Harris was acting nervous/anxious, more than he should have, and he also noticed an open can of beer in the cup holder next to him. At that moment, Officer Wheetley knew that he was hiding something, he requested to search
Established in 1968, the medical school at the University of California implemented a special admissions program to increase the representation of minorities in each entering class. There was one underlying problem with their special admissions program that was not addressed until 1973 when Allan Bakke submitted his application to the University of California.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
It has been a controversial topic for many years since s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enabled when the Charter came into effect in 1982. When or if a police officer were to come up to you under suspicion that you have something illegal or detrimental in your backpack they are not allowed to search or seize anything without a warrant. There are pros and cons to this topic because under section 7 everyone has the right to life, liberty and security so in a negative light if citizens feel unsafe because a person is suspicious and putting others in danger the police are not allowed to interfere without a warrant to make sure that evidence does not become void in a court case, if it arises to that. In a positive light if someone calls 911 and they are in trouble and the police are able to get a warrant on time to help then it would save lives and make society a more secure environment. There has been various cases where spatial privacy has been abused different ways: telephone, Internet, and etc. At this point many may agree that the law itself (Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom) may need to be updated in terms of specifying when it’s needed for a warrant and when it’s not as technology has also been updated since the Constitution was made in 1982. Society’s view may change after cases like R v. Tse, as police can yet invade ones privacy constitutionally or not it may also
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor by the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technological invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth, depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
Second, the search of Hicks home did not include a search warrant, and in Meyers case the police did have a search warrant. In Myers case, police had a lawful search warrant to search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. During that search police located a bloody rag, which was sent for testing. The results of this test revealed the blood belonged to a murder victim, implicating Myers for suspicion of murder. Although the police did have a search warrant, the warrant only listed drugs, and paraphernalia.
The school's undercover narcotics officer, Randy, was killed in the faculty parking lot. A car pulled up, and a black tinted window rolled down. The passenger in the back seat shot him once in the head with a handgun, then the car sped away. Randy was killed instantly, and the people in the car were never caught.
There are certain rights that every citizen of the United States of America are entitled to and as a society we have come to expect that they will always be there and protected. Unless you have emigrated from a foreign country that does not hold the same rights, then these rights are something that you have always known. You were born with them and unless you have been in specific circumstances, then you have always had them. Most of society assumes that in our country everyone is afforded many basic rights including the right of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. For many homeless people living in the United States, this does not hold true. They often are subject random sweeps of known homeless areas, seizure of items during these sweeps, search and seizure of containers, documents, effects, persons and any makeshift home they may have constructed. The federal courts have yet to make any firm decisions with regards to the privacy rights of the homeless, but with cases of homeless privacy violation making their way towards the headlines it won’t be long before the courts will have to answer, either in favor of the homeless privacy rights or against them.