PLEASE ONLY USE THE REFERENCE

Issue: What overarching issue was the court addressing or resolving (one questions not a paragraph just one sentence encapsulating)

Facts: What are the facts that the court described and cared about?

facts section should only include the actual facts of the case.

Rule of Law:What rule please mention the statue, case, legal principle mentioned in the images, did the court apply

*rule of law segment should only include the actual statutes, constitutional amendments or cases the Court applies the facts

Application- how did the court apply the rule to the facts?

*application section should be how the Court applied the facts to the law

Conclusion: what result did the court reach and WHY?

California v. Greenwood

Result 1 of 1 in this book for In early 1984, Investigator Jenny Stracner of the Laguna Beach Police Department recieved information indicating that respondent Greenwood might be engaged in narcotics trafficking. She asked the neighborhood's regular trash collector to pick up the plastic garbage bags that Clear search Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his house and to turn th ebags over to her without mixing their contents with garbage from other houses.The warrantless search and seizure of the garbage bags left at the curb outside the Greenwood house would violate the Fourth Amendment only if respondents manifested a subiective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable. Respondents do not disagree with this standard. They assert, however, that they had, and exhibited, an expectation of privacy with respect to the trash that was searched by the police: The trash, which was placed on the street for collection at a xed time, was contained in opaque plastic bags, which the garbage collector was expected to pick up, mingle with the trash of others, and deposit at the garbage dump. The trash was only temporarily on the street, and there was little likelihood that it would be inspected by anyone. It may well be that respondents did not expect that the contents of their garbage bags would become known to the police or other members of the public. An expectation of privacy does not give rise to Fourth Amendment protection, however, unless society is prepared to accept that expectation as obiectively reasonable. Here, we conclude that respondents exposed their garbage to the public sufciently to defeat their claim to Fourth Amendment protection. It is common knowledge that plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street are readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public. Moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through respondents' trash or permitted others, such as the police, to do so. Accordingly, having deposited their garbage "in an area particularly suited for public inspection and, in a manner of speaking, public consumption, for the express purpose of having strangers take it," respondents could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatorv items that thev discarded. inculpatory items that they discarded. Furthermore, as we have held, 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. Hence, "what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or ofce, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Result 1 of 1 in this book for Similarly, we held in California v. Ciraolo, that the police were not required by the Fourth Amendment to obtain a warrant before conducting surveillance of the respondent's fenced Clear search backyard from a private plane flying at an altitude of 1,000 feet. We concluded that the respondent's expectation. that his yard was protected from such surveillance was unreasonable because