Master The Supreme Court held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left at the curb for collection, so police may search it without a warrant. with this comprehensive case brief.
California v. Greenwood is a foundational Fourth Amendment case addressing whether the police need a warrant to search trash left for collection outside a home. The decision clarifies the contours of "reasonable expectation of privacy" under Katz v. United States by applying an assumption-of-risk rationale: when individuals place garbage on the curb for a third party to collect, they expose its contents to the public in a manner that precludes Fourth Amendment protection. The Court's holding provides law enforcement with a practical investigatory tool—colloquially, the "trash pull"—to develop probable cause for subsequent warrants.
For law students, Greenwood is significant because it sits at the intersection of two overarching Fourth Amendment themes: exposure to the public and the limits of privacy in areas adjacent to the home. It also illustrates how nonconstitutional factors—like municipal anti-scavenging ordinances—do not control the federal constitutional analysis. Greenwood remains central to exam hypos about curtilage, the Katz test, and the relevance of third-party access, and it prompts attention to state constitutional law, where some jurisdictions provide greater privacy protection for refuse than the federal baseline.
486 U.S. 35 (1988)
Acting on information that Billy Greenwood was dealing narcotics from his home in Laguna Beach, California, police conducted surveillance and observed frequent late-night visitors who stayed briefly—behavior consistent with narcotics trafficking. Without obtaining a warrant, an officer asked the neighborhood's regular trash collector to pick up Greenwood's household garbage that had been left on the curb for routine collection and deliver it to police without mixing it with other trash. Officers searched the opaque plastic bags and found items indicative of drug use and distribution (e.g., plastic baggies, drug residue, and related paraphernalia). Based on that evidence, the police obtained a warrant to search Greenwood's home, where they found controlled substances and arrested Greenwood and another occupant. After Greenwood posted bail, officers repeated the trash procedure, again found incriminating evidence, and obtained a second warrant, leading to further seizures. Greenwood moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful, warrantless search of his garbage. The California Superior Court granted the motion and dismissed the charges. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the warrantless trash search violated the Fourth Amendment; the California Supreme Court denied review. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Does the warrantless search and seizure of garbage bags left at the curb outside a home for routine collection violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures?
Under the Fourth Amendment, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage that an individual leaves outside the curtilage of the home for collection by a third party. By exposing trash to the public and conveying it to a third party, the individual assumes the risk that its contents may be examined by others, including the police; therefore, police inspection of such trash is not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and requires neither a warrant nor probable cause.
No. The warrantless search and seizure of garbage left at the curb for collection does not violate the Fourth Amendment because individuals lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in trash exposed to the public and conveyed to a third party.
The Court, per Justice White, applied the Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy framework. Even assuming Greenwood had a subjective expectation of privacy in the contents of his opaque trash bags, that expectation is not one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable when the trash is left on the curb for pickup. By placing garbage in an area accessible to the public—outside the curtilage and specifically for conveyance to a third party—Greenwood exposed it to multiple risks of inspection: scavengers, animals, snoops, children, and the trash collector himself. The Court analogized to cases like Smith v. Maryland and California v. Ciraolo, emphasizing that when individuals knowingly expose information to third parties or to public vantage points, they assume the risk that the government will obtain it without a warrant. The presence of state or local anti-scavenging ordinances did not alter the constitutional analysis; such laws do not create a federally protected expectation of privacy or constrain what information the government may acquire from exposed areas. Because the trash here was placed at the curb for routine collection, the police did not intrude upon a constitutionally protected area or invade a reasonable expectation of privacy when they inspected it. Accordingly, the initial trash searches were not Fourth Amendment "searches," and the resulting warrants for Greenwood's home were supported by probable cause derived from lawfully obtained evidence. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented, arguing that society does recognize a privacy interest in sealed, opaque refuse given the intimate information it can reveal and the widespread legal prohibitions on rummaging. The majority, however, held that these considerations did not transform curbside trash into an area of constitutional protection.
Greenwood is the canonical "trash" case, frequently cited for the proposition that exposure to third parties defeats a reasonable expectation of privacy. It provides doctrinal clarity on how the Katz test treats items placed outside the curtilage and entrusted to third-party collection. Practically, Greenwood authorizes routine investigative "trash pulls" to develop probable cause for warrants. The case also highlights the federalism overlay: while Greenwood sets the federal floor, several states (under their own constitutions) afford greater protection to household refuse, reminding practitioners to consider state constitutional law. For exams, Greenwood is a touchstone for analyzing the interplay among curtilage, public exposure, third-party doctrine, and the limits of nonconstitutional rules (like anti-scavenging ordinances) in defining Fourth Amendment reasonableness.
No. The Supreme Court held that even sealed, opaque trash bags left at the curb for collection are exposed to the public and conveyed to a third party. Thus, any subjective expectation of privacy is not objectively reasonable; the police may inspect the contents without a warrant.
Likely yes. Greenwood emphasized that the trash was left at the curb, outside the curtilage, and accessible to the public. Trash stored within the curtilage—in areas not exposed to public access—raises stronger Fourth Amendment concerns and may require a warrant or exigent circumstances before police inspection.
No, not for Fourth Amendment purposes. The Court explained that such laws do not define federally protected privacy expectations. While they may regulate private conduct or provide state-law remedies, they do not convert curbside trash into a constitutionally protected effect against warrantless inspection by police.
Under federal law, no. Because Greenwood holds that curbside trash searches are not Fourth Amendment "searches," officers do not need probable cause or a warrant to inspect that trash. However, evidence obtained from trash pulls is often used to establish probable cause for subsequent warrants (e.g., to search a home).
Greenwood sets the federal constitutional minimum, but states may grant greater privacy under their own constitutions. Some state high courts have declined to follow Greenwood as a matter of state law and require warrants or additional justification to search curbside trash. Practitioners must check jurisdiction-specific precedent.
California v. Greenwood firmly establishes that individuals lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in trash placed at the curb for collection. By emphasizing exposure to the public and entrustment to a third party, the Court folded curbside refuse into the broader third-party and public-exposure doctrines under Katz, enabling law enforcement to use trash pulls as a legitimate investigative step without a warrant.
For law students and practitioners, Greenwood underscores two recurring lessons: first, that the scope of Fourth Amendment protection turns on objective social expectations rather than subjective hopes of secrecy; and second, that federal constitutional baselines often coexist with more protective state constitutional rules. Mastery of Greenwood's reasoning equips students to navigate fact patterns involving curtilage, third-party access, and the strategic use of non-search investigative techniques.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →