California V. Greenwood Case Study

Improved Essays
California v. Greenwood: Case Brief

California v. Greenwood established that items set out in a public space and which are available for the public to inspect are not granted the Fourth Amendment right to require a search warrant before searching or seizing that property.

Facts

Police Officers in Laguna Beach were conducting a drug trafficking investigation. The target of the investigation was Billy Greenwood. During this investigation the Laguna Beach Police Department asked the trash collector of Mr. Greenwood's trash to place it separately from the other trash they normally picked up. The police officers found evidence of drug use in the trash. They then used this evidence to obtain a search warrant, a legal document permitting the searching of property by police or the government, to search Mr. Greenwood's home. Once inside they found evidence of drug use and trafficking.
…show more content…
Greenwood. Mr. Greenwood then posted bail, or a certain amount to be released from incarceration to insure court appearances, and was released from jail during the pendency of his criminal case. During this time the police received information that Mr. Greenwood was again using and selling drugs at his home. The police once again conducted a search of his trash and found evidence and received a second search warrant based on this evidence to search his home. Once inside they found more narcotics and Mr. Greenwood was arrested again.

The trial court, in this case the Superior Court, dismissed, or dropped, the charges against Mr. Greenwood stating that the warrantless searches of Mr. Greenwood's trash violated the protection from unreasonable search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The government then appealed to the Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court, both courts denied the government's claims and the case was finally appealed the United States Supreme Court.

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    The Exclusionary Rule

    • 1087 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Supreme Court overturned the decision concluding that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible. Furthermore, the court also added that the officers used brutal force to obtain the evidence from Mr Rochin, a violation of due process. The Court did not make the exclusionary rule relevant in all states cases, but only in those cases of extremely serious police misconduct (Forst & Dempsey, 2011, p.183). I believe that there were different approaches the police could have taken to make…

    • 1087 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hypothetically speaking, An officer creates a search warrant for evidence related to, a financial scheme. He seeks authorization to search the suspect 's home and any evidence which would connect the suspect to the scheme. The officers walk into the home, and search every inch of the house, and find bundles of cocaine in the bathtub. The law enforcement agent seizes the drugs because they are now in plain view of his search. He was searching for paperwork in relation to a financial scheme the officer now arrest the book the suspect for possession of an illegal substance, with intent to sell, which is a completely unrelated crime.…

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In the search of Ms. Mapp’s house the officer did not find the bombing suspect but they did find some pornographic material that was hidden in a suitcase under Ms. Mapp’s bed. Ms. Mapp was then charged and found guilty with possession of pornographic material. Ms. Mapp’s argued that her rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated by the search, and she took her appeal to the Supreme Court. In a 5 – 3 vote the Supreme Court voted in favor of Ms. Mapp (United States Courts, 2016). The standards for searches and seizures by law enforcement are set by the 4th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment obligates…

    • 1372 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The defendant tried to appeal the case stating that the security officers violated her rights according to the 4th and 14th amendments by detaining and searching her illegally. The defendant also tried to throw have the charges drop for being in possession of the illegal substance. Her motion was denied because the private security officials have the same rights as private citizens when it comes to enforcing citizen’s arrest by detaining a suspect. “The People contend that the evidence is nevertheless admissible because the search and seizure were made by private persons. They urge that Burdeau v. McDowell (1921) 256 U.S. 465 [65 L.Ed.…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The officers stopped the respondent and demanded him to submit to a pat down. Upon administering the pat down, the officers did not discover a weapon; nonetheless, the officer did feel a “lump” in the respondent’s jacket. The officer probed further and discovered the lump was a cellophane bag containing cocaine. The respondent moved to have the cocaine evidence be suppressed because the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights to a lawful search and seizure. Nonetheless, the trial court rejected that request based the reasonable cause the officers had to search him.…

    • 494 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Achman Case Study

    • 748 Words
    • 3 Pages

    They even looked through drawers. When they couldn’t find anything, the looked in the kitchen drawer and found a 22-Caliber pistol with ammunition. Puzzled, the officers questioned him, put the pistol in a evidence bag and proceeded to arrest Mohammed. They arrested him because it was an illegal hand gun. My question is, why did the police officers arrest him for something that wasn 't included in the search warrant?…

    • 748 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Without a search warrant, they arrested Mr. Rodriguez for battery and illegal guns being seized. The search warrant must be issued to search specific areas or persons. Three, consent; a person can give an officer to have authority to search or seizure. Four, Stop and Frisk: An officer can stop a suspect as long as there is a reasonable suspicion. Five, Automobile exception: a warrant is not required to search vehicles, if there is probable cause.…

    • 787 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peradventure, that the police are serving a legal warrant to pick up robbery suspect who also is a known drug dealer, because of the exclusionary rule from Mapp v. Ohio when the police arrive at the suspect address, they are not allow to search the home looking for drugs unless the warrant stipulates. Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Mapp v. Ohio complicates law enforcement with bureaucracy and suppresses simple law enforcement.…

    • 598 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The purpose for this rule can be looked at like a way for law enforcements to conduct searches and seizures that do not violate the Fourth Amendment and individuals that have had their rights violated. This legal rule first made its appearance during the U.S. Supreme court case Weeks v. United States (1914). Freemont Weeks was arrested under suspicion of using the U.S. mail to transmit lottery tickets. Once he was arrested, officers searched his office without a warrant and found evidence of what he was being suspected of. They also searched Weeks home without a warrant, but found no evidence.…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Gant was arrested and charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, and narcotic drug for sale. As a consequence, Gant guilty of both counts and was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. At the trial,Gant’s lawyer placed a motion to suppress the evident because it was obtained from his car without a warrant, stating that it was a violation of Gant’s fourth amendment right. Gant counsel argued that the police officer was not entitled to search the car because Gant was arrested for a traffic offense. The Arizona Lower court rejected the motion on the grounds that the police officer had probable cause to search the car.…

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays