Search and Seizure-California versus Greenwood

Search and Seizure-California versus Greenwood

The Fourth Amendment

In accordance with the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, people have the right to be secure in their persons, residences, credentials, and personal property. They are protected against unreasonable searches or seizures (Kerr 2007). A little investigation is conducted without probable cause or a search warrant. However, if there is a possible cause or a search warrant, then the search or seizure is reasonable and against no violation. All the same, there are a few exceptions to this amendment. First, if an officer has no warrant but asks for permission to search a residence from the owner and is given consent, then that search is valid.

Subsequently, if there is probable cause to search a premise and the circumstances, also known as exigent circumstances, call for an immediate search, then the warrantless search is also valid (Hawkins 2021). Difficult circumstances include imminent danger to people, damage to evidence, and close escape of the suspect. Lastly, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches and seizures done on objects in plain view, open fields, abandonment, and border searches. Open fields include areas that are out of the curtilage of residence, like open waters, wooded areas, vacant lots, pastures, abandoned buildings, and even fenced fields (Minchin 2021). However, some states refute this open-field doctrine in privately owned lands outside of the residence’s curtilage. Subsequently, a plain view refers to the instances when the evidence is clearly visible, like drugs in a car. In addition, border searches are exceptions that allow searches and seizures to be conducted at international borders without probable cause or search warrants. Finally, the abandonment exception applies to property that an individual has relinquished ownership of (Minchin 2021). For example, by intentionally throwing a phone or laptop away, the police could later collect it if needed for investigation without violating the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights.

In the California versus Greenwood case, two police officers, Martinez and Williams, acted on information obtained from neighbors claiming that the respondent, Greenwood, might be involved in drug trafficking. Accordingly, the officers received substances (twice) from the regular garbage bags left in front of his house. The items in the garbage bags were indicative of narcotics use, which led officers Williams and Martinez to proceed to obtain search warrants to search the Greenwood’s house. Consequently, the police officers discovered controlled substances during their search and therefore arrested Greenwood on felony drug charges.

Subsequently, the respondent claimed that the seizure and search of his garbage were violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, but the court dismissed the case. The officer’s actions are governed by the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause (Hawkins 2019). Accordingly, probable cause exists when there is a significant possibility that a search will reveal evidence of a crime. To obtain a search warrant on a residence, law enforcement agents must provide probable cause to the judge, and to do this, they must conduct an investigation (Hawkins 2019). Following the tips from the neighbors, the police officers had to find proof that there was drug dealing in Greenwood’s premises before searching the house. Therefore, the investigation is a mandatory requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Applicable Doctrines in the California versus Greenwood Case

The abandonment doctrine applies to the Greenwood versus California case. The Fourth Amendment law with regard to the abandonment doctrine stipulates that when an individual makes evident a surrender of privacy interest to an object or place, law enforcement agents may search it without a warrant and with no extra factual reasoning (Minchin 2021). Because the respondent, Greenwood, intentionally put their garbage for collection in an area that explicitly suited public inspection, his claim of violation of privacy in the trash he intentionally threw away was objectively unreasonable. In addition, it is common knowledge that debris or waste, either in plastic bags or in dumpsters left along a public area, is easily accessible to scavengers, animals, homeless people, children, and other general members. Furthermore, the express purpose of taking his garbage out was to convey it to the garbage collector, a third party, who could have done anything they wanted with it, like going through it themselves or letting other people, i.e., the police, do so. Besides, police officers are reasonably expected to focus their attention on evidence of criminal activity reported by any member of the public.

Similar Cases

A similar case to that of Greenwood versus California is that of Minker versus the United States. In the case, while investigating illegal gambling operations, Internal Revenue Service agents searched through the garbage put in a dumpster of Minker, the defendant’s apartment complex (Koehler 2019). As a result, the agents discovered adding machine tapes and other gambling accouterments in the dumpster. When the defendant tried to get the evidence dismissed as a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, the court ruled that the evidence was admissible for the reason that it had been abandoned, and consequently, no search ensued.

References

Hawkins, D. (2019). Probable Cause Warrantless Search. Wisconsin Law Journal.

Hawkins, D. (2021). Warrantless Search & Seizure Exigent Circumstances. Wisconsin Law Journal.

Kerr, O. S. (2007). Four models of fourth amendment protection. Stan. L. Rev., 60, 503.

Koehler, J. E. (2019). If It Looks Like Garbage and Smells Like Garbage: The Weakness of Trash-Pull Evidence in Establishing Probable Cause for Search Warrants of Homes. Washburn LJ, 58, 769.

Minchin, G. E. (2021). The Incredible Shrinking Fourth Amendment. Beijing L. Rev., 12, 813.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Overview

The Fourth Amendment is one of the cornerstones of our freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It protects people against unreasonable search and seizure of their person, property and belongings. Law enforcement officers must work to ensure they do not violate the Fourth Amendment while performing their duties. They have a responsibility to protect people’s rights and not invalidate evidence for any future court cases.

Search and Seizure-California versus Greenwood

In this assignment, you will analyze a case study based on an actual case to determine whether police officers’ search and seizure actions related to suspected illegal drug activities were constitutional. Here is the case study you will analyze in your assignment.
Case Study

In the Los Angeles Brentwood neighborhood, neighbors have notified the police that they have seen vehicles coming and going from one specific home. The incidents occur between 11:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. The neighbors believe drug activity may be taking place. The local police division assigns officers Williams and Martinez to investigate possible drug activity at that location.
Officer Williams contacts the neighborhood’s regular trash collection service and asks it to put the contents of the subject’s (defendant’s) garbage left at the curb in plastic bags so as not to mix the subject’s garbage with others. He also asked the trash collector to turn the subject’s bags over to him at the end of trash day collections. The trash collector did as Officer Williams requested. Officer Williams’s partner, Officer Martinez, searched through the garbage and found items indicative of narcotics use. Officer Williams and Officer Martinez then listed the information obtained from the trash in an affidavit to support a warrant to search the defendant’s home. Officer Martinez and Officer Williams encountered the defendant at the house later that day upon execution of the contract. The officers found quantities of cocaine and heroin during the search and arrested the defendant on felony narcotics charges.
Note: As you complete this assignment, it will be helpful to you to read the actual case on which this case study is based: California v. Greenwood.
Instructions

Write a three- to four-page analysis of this case study in which you:
Explain in your own words the Fourth Amendment, which governs the officers’ actions.
Determine which of the following doctrines apply to this case study: plain view, abandonment, open fields, or border searches.
Be sure to support your determination by citing specific case law and contemporary cases.
You may find the CQ Supreme Court Collection a valuable database as you conduct your research. You will also find this database and other useful ones under Strayer’s B.S. in Criminal Justice library resource page. Click on Specialized Databases.
This less than two-minute video, called Finding Supreme Court Cases Relating to Specific Amendments, shows you how to search for cases by amendment.
Assess the constitutionality of the officer’s actions in the case study.
Use three sources to support your writing.
Choose sources that are credible, relevant, and appropriate.
Cite each source listed on your source page at least one time within your assignment.
For help with research, writing, and citation, access the library or review library guides.
You may use your textbook as one of your resources.