Basic Information

The architect Cass Gilbert had grand ambitions for his design of a new home for the Supreme Court--what he called "the greatest tribunal in the world, one of the three great elements of our national government." Gilbert knew that the approach to the Court, as much as the structure itself, would define the experience of the building, but the site presented a challenge. Other exalted Washington edifices--the Capitol, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial--inspired awe with their processional approaches. But in 1928 Congress had designated for the Court a cramped and asymmetrical plot of land, wedged tightly between the Capitol and the Library of Congress. How could Gilbert convey to visitors the magnitude and importance of the judicial process taking place within the Court's walls?
The answer, he decided, was steps. Gilbert pushed back the wings of the building, so that the public face of the building would be a portico with a massive imposing stairway. Visitors would not have to walk a long distance to enter, but few would forget the experience of mounting those forty-four steps to the double row of eight massive columns supporting the roof. The walk up the stairs would be the central symbolic experience of the Supreme Court, a physical manifestation of the American march to justice. The stairs separated the Court from the everyday world--and especially from the earthly concerns of the politicians in the Capitol-- and announced that the justices would operate, literally, on a higher plane. (Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Anchor Books, 2008.)

Thursday, February 11, 2010

California vs. Greenwood 1988

What this case proves is that you are never safe after you throw something away. The Supreme Court ruled that once you put a trashcan on the street corner, the substances inside are no longer you property and any officially can legally search the contents. The case seems to go against the reasonable expectation of privacy but it doesn't. Once you discard something, you made the conscience decision that you no longer want the item, or whatever you threw into the garbage can . So this case clearly deals with what you throw away can come back to haunt you. The downside on the officials side is that they have to actually prove that whatever found in the trashcans were discarded by the person. Just remember, don't think that throwing something away gets you out of trouble because it could backfire on you later.

Facts of the Case:
Local police suspected Billy Greenwood was dealing drugs from his residence. Because the police did not have enough evidence for a warrant to search his home, they searched the garbage bags Greenwood had left at the curb for pickup. The police uncovered evidence of drug use, which was then used to obtain a warrant to search the house. That search turned up illegal substances, and Greenwood was arrested on felony charges.


Question:
Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood's garbage violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure guarantee?


Conclusion:
Voting 6 to 2, the Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets "readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public." The Court also noted that the police cannot be expected to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by "any member of the public."[Oyez]
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. TStokFebruary 12, 2010 at 9:19 AM

    This is a great case to share with your peers. We tend to think of our garbage as a place where no one wants to go. But, garbage is in fact commonly rooted through and used against people.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)