486 U.S. 35 (1988)
In early 1984, Investigator Jenny Stracner of the Laguna Beach Police Department received information indicating that respondent Greenwood might be engaged in narcotics trafficking.1 A criminal suspect had informed a federal drug enforcement agent that a truck filled with illegal drugs was en route to the Laguna Beach address at which Greenwood resided.2 Additionally, a neighbor complained of heavy vehicular traffic late at night in front of Greenwood’s single-family home, with vehicles remaining for only a few minutes.3
Stracner conducted surveillance of Greenwood’s home and observed several vehicles make brief stops during late-night and early morning hours.4 She followed a truck from the house to a residence previously under investigation as a narcotics-trafficking location.5 On April 6, 1984, Stracner asked the neighborhood’s regular trash collector to pick up the plastic garbage bags that Greenwood had left on the curb and turn them over without mixing contents.6 The trash collector collected the bags and turned them over to Stracner, who searched through the rubbish and found items indicative of narcotics use.7
Stracner used the information from the trash search to obtain a warrant to search Greenwood’s home.8 Police officers executed the warrant, discovered quantities of cocaine and hashish, and arrested respondents on felony narcotics charges.9 The police continued to receive reports of late-night visitors, and on May 4, Investigator Robert Rahaeuser obtained Greenwood’s garbage in the same manner, finding more evidence of narcotics use and securing another search warrant.10
Execution of the second warrant yielded additional narcotics and evidence of trafficking, leading to Greenwood’s second arrest.11 The Superior Court dismissed the charges against respondents.12 The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, and the California Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for review.13 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the case.14
Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home?15
The warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection violates the Fourth Amendment only if the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable under the Katz test.16
No. Investigator Jenny Stracner received information that Greenwood might be engaged in narcotics trafficking and conducted surveillance of his single-family home, observing brief late-night stops by vehicles.17 On April 6, 1984, Stracner arranged for the regular trash collector to pick up Greenwood's plastic garbage bags left on the curb and turn them over without mixing their contents.18 Stracner searched the bags and found items indicative of narcotics use, which she used to obtain a search warrant for the home.19
The police executed the warrant, discovered cocaine and hashish, and arrested the respondents.20 A second trash search on May 4, 1984, by Investigator Robert Rahaeuser yielded additional evidence leading to another warrant and arrest.21 Greenwood left the opaque plastic bags on the public curb for collection, an area readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public.22 Respondents therefore exposed their garbage to the public sufficiently to defeat any claim to Fourth Amendment protection, as they conveyed it to a third party, the trash collector, who could have permitted the police to examine it.23
The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of charges under People v. Krivda, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.24
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.25
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented, arguing that sealed trash bags deserve the same Fourth Amendment protection as other opaque containers such as double-locked footlockers or packages wrapped in green plastic.26 He observed that the Laguna Beach police clawed through Greenwood's trash weekly for two months without probable cause or a warrant, dredging up intimate details of private life.27 Brennan contended that society would be shocked to learn that the Court deems unreasonable the expectation that contents concealed in sealed bags will remain private, as trash searches reveal eating habits, health, finances, and personal relationships.28
He rejected the majority's reliance on possible intrusions by animals or scavengers, noting that the mere possibility of meddling does not negate privacy any more than the possibility of burglary negates privacy in the home.29 He also distinguished cases where private parties had already compromised a container's integrity.30
Whether the Fourth Amendment analysis of a search depends on the law of the particular State in which the search occurs?31
The Fourth Amendment analysis of whether a search is reasonable turns on societal understandings of privacy rather than the law of the particular State in which the search occurs.32
No. Greenwood argued that the state-law right to privacy in garbage recognized in Krivda survived the California constitutional amendment and should be vindicated under the Fourth Amendment.33 The Court rejected this position. Fourth Amendment analysis must turn on factors such as societal understanding that areas such as garbage left for collection at the curb deserve scrupulous protection from government invasion, not on varying state laws.34 Although states may impose more stringent constraints under their own constitutions, the federal constitutional question remains independent of those state choices.35
The Fourth Amendment analysis of a search does not depend on the law of the particular State in which the search occurs.36
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires suppression of evidence obtained from a warrantless trash search that violates state law but not federal law?37
The Due Process Clause does not require states to maintain an exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of state-law rights that do not also violate federal law. States may balance the benefits of deterrence against the costs of excluding reliable evidence.38
No. The Due Process Clause does not require suppression of evidence obtained from a warrantless trash search that violates state law but not federal law.39 Greenwood contended that once California recognized a state-law right to be free from warrantless trash searches, the Due Process Clause prevented the state from eliminating the exclusionary rule as the only effective deterrent.40 The Court found no merit in this argument, explaining that California could amend its constitution to eliminate the right itself and could likewise eliminate the exclusionary remedy for violations of that right.41 Federal precedent already permits admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment under doctrines such as the good-faith exception, and states may apply a similar balancing approach without offending due process.42
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require suppression of evidence obtained from a warrantless trash search that violates state law but not federal law.43