Billy Greenwood And Dyanne Van Houten Summary

In 1988, California v. Billy Greenwood and Dyanne Van Houten was about a suspecting of selling and using drugs in Mr. Greenwood house a narcotic officer told the man to bring her the trash bag which Greenwood had placed out the street for pick up, but as the officer search the bags she found drug paraphernalia which was used as evidence to convict Mr. Greenwood but the lower court revoked it because she search the trash bag without a warrant and that was a violation of the fourth amendment. but the trash bags was placed on the street were any child or animal can unseal it so he could not argue about his privacy if it was out in the police for anything or any person to expose the content of the bags but the court stated “ the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public “ this means

As time goes by the state of California argued that the trash at the curb is in a area where it can be controlled by the home owner and it is not within the protection of the 4th amendment also any person passing could have access to it and no one who put trash on the curb has an expectation of privacy because it is released to the public view by the defendant but it can cause a problem for the house search is admissible as a part of the prosecution case for illegal drug trafficking .As the case continued for Greenwood they argue that the “ Adequate probable cause “ to the search the trash but the evidence should not be acceptable without the evidence gathered from the search trash and the police would have no probable cause for the house warrant . Therefore the warrant and the evidence can’t be acceptable and they didn’t have permission from Mr. Greenwood to search his trash because he had a “reasonable expectation of privacy “ and the search warrant was not admitted for prosecution