Is it illegal to steal someone's garbage when they have set it on the street?

Answer 1

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the police may legally search, without a search warrant, trash or garbage that individuals put out for collection. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988). As explained below, search and seizure of material placed in the trash is a clear invasion of an individual's privacy and this Supreme Court holding should be overturned.

Residents commonly place their trash in plastic bags and put the bags on the curb, for pickup by the municipal trash collection service. The bags themselves are opaque, commonly black or green or brown. The technology to make transparent plastic bags is well known, yet trash bags are always opaque. The color of trash bags is our first hint that people who purchase and use trash bags do not want transparent bags, since that would allow the contents to be easily seen.


The Alaska Supreme Court recognized that
Almost every human activity ultimately manifests itself in waste products and ... any individual may understandably wish to maintain the confidentiality of his refuse.
State v. Smith, 510 P.2d 793, 798 (Alaska 1973) (nonetheless holding that police could search garbage without warrant).
Trash routinely contains many personal items, including:
empty prescription medicine bottles, which are always labeled with the individual's name and may be labeled with the name and dosage of the drug, so that someone who searches the trash may infer the individual's medical condition. Particularly in the case of sexually-transmitted diseases or psychiatric disorder, disclosure of the individual's medical condition could cause embarrassment.
credit card receipts, which have the person's name and credit card data; someone who searches the trash could use these data to order merchandise by telephone
letters that contain confidential information on financial, political, religious, family, or romantic topics
empty containers of alcoholic beverages, which could be embarrassing in a town with a substantial number of people who disapprove of alcohol for religious or moral reasons
empty boxes for condoms, birth control pill packages, empty containers of spermicide, and other contraceptive materials that could be embarrassing, but are legal to possess and use.
telephone invoices, with a list of all long-distance numbers called, with the date and duration of the call
paper indicating membership in political or religious groups
This list makes clear that there are a number of items in household trash that people routinely regard as private. When people place such personal items in an opaque plastic bag on the curb for trash collection, they are expressing their continuing expectation of privacy. However, the holdings of courts that there is no expectation of privacy for garbage means that, to protect their privacy, individuals must purchase and routinely use a paper shredder to destroy receipts and letters, before placing them in the trash. Other materials, such as containers of prescription medicine, are more difficult to destroy beyond recognition. Instead of requiring such contortions from individuals, the law should recognize the wrongfulness of such intrusions into garbage.
The argument has been made that garbage from different residences is "promptly intermingled with other garbage in the truck such that its origin can no longer be identified." California v. Rooney, 483 U.S. 307, 322 (1987) (White, J., citing respondent's argument). While this quick anonymity is true for many items, it is not true for paper that contains names of people, such as invoices and labels on containers of prescription medicine.


One of the reasons cited by the U.S. Supreme Court to deny privacy to trash was
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.
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 39 (1988) [footnotes omitted].
At the time that the Greenwood opinion was written, this argument had already been demolished by the observation that "We expect officers of the state to be more knowledgeable and respectful of people's privacy than are dogs and curious children." State of Florida v. Schultz, 388 So.2d 1326, 1330 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1980)(Anstead, J., dissenting); quoted with approval in State v. Hempele, 576 A.2d 793, 805 (N.J. 1990). One could obtain substantial protection against small animals by placing trash bags inside a metal or rigid plastic container with a lid. Indeed, in some communities, a municipal ordinance requires such containers.
The mere possibility of intrusion (e.g., burglar entering a house) does not negate the expectation of privacy in other situations, so it is inconsistent to hold differently for garbage. Greenwood, 486 U.S. at 54 (Brennan, J., dissenting); State v. Hempele, 576 A.2d 793, 804 (N.J. 1990).

The U.S. Supreme Court noted that a reporter for a weekly tabloid had seized five bags of garbage from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, inventoried the contents, and published the results. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, n.4 and 1635 (1988). The opinion of the Court used this invasion of Dr. Kissinger's privacy by a reporter as part of the reason to assert that one had no expectation of privacy in one's garbage! Just because Dr. Kissinger chose not to sue the reporter for "public disclosure of private facts" does not mean than an outrageous violation of his privacy did not occur.

In considering searches of luggage and packages, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there was no distinction between worthy containers (e.g., fancy suitcase, attaché case) and unworthy containers (e.g., paper bag), if the containers were opaque. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967)(Harlan, J., concurring); Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 425-427 (1981); U.S. v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 815, 822 (1982). Because one expects law to be consistent, garbage that is in an opaque container should be protected from search. State v. Hempele, 576 A.2d 793, 803-804 (N.J. 1990).


I think a dissenting judge in a case in a Florida appellate court said it well:
In my view, a homeowner, upon placing items in a closed garbage container and placing the container in a position on his property where the container can be conveniently removed by authorized trash collectors, is entitled to reasonably expect that the container and the trash therein will be removed from his property only by those authorized to do so, and that such trash will be disposed of in the manner provided by ordinance or private contract. By sealing the containers in a secure manner and placing the containers on his own property, the owner has done everything within his own means to insure the privacy of the contents thereof, short of delivering the containers to a central disposal site himself.
State of Florida v. Schultz, 388 So.2d 1326, 1330 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1980) (Anstead, J., dissenting)

Answer 2

I'll agree with that, for the most part. I will make an exception though that some illegals are stealing jobs from 1st Generation Americans that may be from the same country as the illegals. There's a huge problem in California with many of the legal migrant workers, as well as 1st Generation Americans not being able to get decent work in the fields harvesting produce because many of the jobs are being given to the illegals who will work for very little. As for jobs that other Americans have, who may have been in this country for a long time, I have yet to see in that case an American want to get a job, and couldn't get one because it was being occupied by an illegal, the exception to the rule I already stated above.

Answer 3

In the United States, No.

By putting the trash out they have abandoned it.

What you do with the garbage may be another matter though. Using personal information obtained through the garbage to steal someone's identity would still be a crime, you could still be subject to suits for liable, slander, invasion of privacy or intentional infilction of emotional distress, depending on what you do with what you take.

Oh, it could be a crime if in the process of stealing the garbage you violate a restraining order, or if you are tresspassing.

Answer 4

There may be a local ordinance regarding it. In general however it is not illegal to take someone's trash.

Answer 5

I would think with so much identity theft going on today,could could end up in some trouble.I would ask the person ,if they are throwing away an item you want.But if you are rummaging through the trash for paperwork,I dont think I would want to get caught doing that.

Answer 6

it's not, but you'd hope that you don't get sick from whatever diseases or germs you might get from picking through the garbage.

Answer 7

Who would want to take garbage ?

Answer 8

No, it isn't. Once they throw it out, it isn't theirs anymore.

Answer 9

i don't think so, i mean it's not their stuff anymore after they throw it out

Answer 10

define someone. who owns it when it is put on the street.

Answer 11

one mans trash is another mans treasure, Dean Brody said it :)