supreme court decision on discarded items (late1970)?

Question

In late 1970 a man living in a house in California left a pail containing some marajana particles on his porch. The police (who were suspicious) grabbed the pail and checked it out. They found the particles of marajuana. The homeowner argued that they had no right to take the pail from his porch without a court order. The case went to the Supreme Court. They ruled that the man was correct. They only way they could take the pail was if he left it near the curb, thus saying he was giving up ownership of the contents. The court ruling established that the contents of a bin (located at a place where you could drive a car up to it) were free to anyone who wanted those contents. Can anyone locate an article on the web about this topic. The situation arose again in 1990 (approx) when Revlon allowed another cosmetic company to be second source of one of their products. Believing the 2nd company was cheating, they sent people to examine the bin of the 2nd company. The same issues arose.

Answer 1

You are confusing two different cases. The first, is People v. Edwards (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1096, in which marijuana was found in a trash can near a person's back door. That case relied upon the fact that the police officers had to go onto private property to search a person's trash as making the search illegal.

In 1970 the California Supreme Court found that a person has an expectation of privacy under the US Constitution even in trash placed in recepticles for collection on the street (but not just thrown away). People v. Krivda (1970) 5 Cal.3d 357. The US Supreme Court disagreed. California v. Krivda (1973) 412 U.S. 919. The California Supreme Court thereafter held that a search of a trash recepticle would still violate the California Constitution's privacy protection. People v. Krivda (1973) 8 Cal.3d 623.

However, later California adopted a law that said that you do not get suppression of evidence unless that evidence is seized in violation of the US Constitution. So, even though the California Constitution still gives people a reasonable expectation of privacy in trash in recepticles, that is sort of forgotten because suppression of evidence is not the remedy.

However, I can see the proposition being advanced in a civil case where someone's trash is searched, such as the Revlon matter you describe. However, I can find no reference to that fact pattern in any California case law or news reports.

Answer 2

There are countless court rulings concerning the collection of "evidence" from discarded garbage to include US vs. Redmon.

In the vast majority of arguments of appeal, it is claimed there is a 4th Amendment violation of Unreasonable Search and Seizure. The counter argument is normally that of a "reasonable expectation" to a LACK of privacy once the garbage has been placed upon the curb or "public access." Once property has been placed upon "public access" there is no longer a "reasonable expectation" to privacy and therefore in all those cases I'm aware of the evidence was permitted and the searches found legitimate.

I could not find a case involving the circumstances you mention, however, a pail left upon the porch of a residence has more expection to privacy than that of a bag of garbage left upon the curtilage. The officers would have had to cross the "threshold" of the property line to collect evidence. Of course "articulation" in every affidavit in support of a search warrant is important to the sucessful execution of such a warrant.

Had the officers "articulated" they went to talk to the homeowner and observed in "plainview" the pail with what appeared to be marijuana, then obtained a warrant for the pail and residence, quite possibly they would not have had their case reversed by the court!

As for the Revlon issue...I don't believe you will find any documentation concerning illegal search and seizure in a civil issue.

Hope this helps...best wishes.