Search and Seizures in Public When you are in public, walking down the street or going to work, chances are that you have a limited expectation of privacy. You are in public right? In general, the Supreme Court agrees that in public, the Fourth Amendment provides little protection. Nevertheless, the Court has said that the Fourth Amendment does have some power in public, and in other, perhaps surprising ways, doesn’t.

Focus Questions

Think about these questions while reading the case studies.

How does the 4th Amendment regulate activities in this location?
What do you think is the legal “rule” regarding searches/seizures in the location?
What types of searches and seizures are allowed?
Did any of the cases surprise you? Why or why not?

Case Study 2: Katz v. United States 389 U. S. 347 (1967)

Facts: Katz used a public phone in LA to call other parts of the country to place illegal bets. Katz frequently used the same phone booth and the police set up an electronic listening/recording device in the booth without a warrant. The recordings of Katz’s portion of the phone calls were used against him in his trial for illegal gambling. Katz claimed that the police use of the device violated his Fourth Amendment right. California claimed that Katz had no reasonable right to expect that his phone calls in a public phone booth would be private.

Decision: The Court held that the Fourth Amendment did in fact apply in a public phone booth. According to the Court, the Fourth Amendment applies to people not places. In other words, if a person acts in a way that indicates that he or she expects privacy, and such an expectation is reasonable, than the Fourth Amendment will apply.

Case Study 3: California v. Greenwood 486 U. S. 35 (1988)

Facts: The police received a tip that Greenwood was selling drugs out of his home. A police officer asked the trash collector who worked on Greenwood’s street to set the trash bags from in front of Greenwood’s home aside when collecting trash. The officer then went through the bags from in front of Greenwood’s house and found evidence of drug use. This evidence was then used to get a warrant to search Greenwood’s home, where the police found drugs. Greenwood was charged with drug possession and drug trafficking. Greenwood argued that the warrantless search of his trash violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

Decision: The Court upheld the search and subsequent warrant and arrest. According to the Supreme Court, there is no expectation of privacy in our trash. The Court focused on the fact that the trash was left on the side of the curb, where anyone can look at it and animals or scavengers could get into it. Because trash is knowingly exposed to the public, the Court said there was no role for the Fourth Amendment to play here.