Is there privacy in trash?

Star Chamber Proceedings

Star chamber proceeding is a phrase used in litigation to refer to an arbitrary and unfair adjudicatory proceeding. The term derives from the Star Chamber Courts of Medieval and early-modern England, which were at first used to try noblemen too powerful to be brought before common courts, but eventually became used to suppress anti-monarchical sentiment. Star Chamber Courts became seen as unfair, as they consisted of a committee of the king’s council, were conducted in secrecy, and especially during the reign of Charles I used torture to obtain confessions and suppress opposition. 

While Parliament abolished Star Chamber Courts in 1641, the phrase still invokes images of judicial arbitrariness and judges and litigants often employ the phrase to oppose a proceeding they see as unfair for rhetorical effect. Litigants may use the phrase to challenge proceedings against them. For example, in DS v. JH, a divorced husband challenged a divorce proceeding by the Scottish Court of Sessions, attacking the proceeding as a “star chamber.” In a 2018 District Court of Massachusetts case, Burnham v. Commonwealth, a pro se litigant sued state officials for conducting a criminal prosecution against him, which he characterized as “analogous to a 16th century star chamber proceeding[,] an arbitrary arm of royal power in the days of the Tudor and Stuart Kings.” Judges have also employed the term to question the fairness of legal proceedings. For example, in U.S. v Ju Toy (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court, in considering an immigration proceeding where Chinese immigrants landing in California had to potentially appear and give testimony in Washington D.C. to establish lawful admission to the U.S., questioned whether “if this be not a star-chamber proceeding of the most stringent sort, what more is necessary to make it one?”

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - SEARCH AND SEIZURE ABANDONMENT PEOPLE V KRIVDA

NCJ Number 14112

Journal Wisconsin Law Review Volume: 1974 Issue: 1 Dated: (1974) Pages: 212-227

Author(s) E R BRANIGAN

Date Published 1974

Length 16 pages

Annotation

A 1973 CALIFORNIA CASE HOLDING THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF THE DEFENDANT'S TRASH WITHOUT A WARRANT WAS INVALID AND SUGGESTING THAT TRADITIONAL NATIONS OF ABANDONNED PROPERTY DO NOT APPLY TO TRASH.

1. People v. Krivda (1971, California)

• Court: California Supreme Court

• Issue: Whether police search and seizure of garbage placed for collection violated the Fourth Amendment.

• Holding: The California Supreme Court ruled that the police needed a warrant to search garbage placed for collection, asserting that individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their trash.

• Importance: Set the stage for the examination of privacy expectations regarding garbage.

2. California v. Krivda (1972, U.S. Supreme Court)

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

• Issue: Review of the California ruling.

• Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case back to the California Supreme Court for reconsideration based on procedural grounds without addressing the Fourth Amendment issues directly.

3. United States v. Dzialak (1974, Second Circuit)

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

• Issue: Police searched garbage left at the curb without a warrant.

• Holding: The court upheld the search, reasoning that once garbage is placed outside for collection, individuals abandon any reasonable expectation of privacy.

4. United States v. Mustone (1975, First Circuit)

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

• Issue: Warrantless searches of trash left for collection.

• Holding: The court ruled that trash left in an area accessible to the public (for collection) is abandoned, and thus, not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

5. Smith v. State (1983, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals)

• Issue: Texas law enforcement searched garbage placed in an alleyway without a warrant.

• Holding: The court upheld the search, affirming that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists in garbage left for collection in a public place.

6. California v. Greenwood (1988, U.S. Supreme Court)

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

• Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

• Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for garbage left for collection in a location accessible to the public, such as on a curb. The Court reasoned that since the garbage is knowingly exposed to the public and readily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, and the like, it is effectively abandoned.

• Importance: This is the most significant ruling on garbage searches and remains the controlling precedent.

7. State v. Goss (2001, New Hampshire Supreme Court)

• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

• Issue: Warrantless search of garbage placed for collection.

• Holding: The court held that under the New Hampshire Constitution, the search of garbage required a warrant, diverging from California v. Greenwood by providing greater protections under state law.

8. State v. Granville (2014, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals)

• Issue: The case dealt with a search of property left in a jail, but its relevance lies in its broader discussion on the abandonment of property and the expectation of privacy.

• Holding: The court found that when property is abandoned in an area where privacy is no longer expected, Fourth Amendment protections do not apply.

9. People v. Diaz (2015, Illinois Supreme Court)

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

• Issue: Warrantless search of garbage placed in an alley for collection.

• Holding: The court upheld the search under Greenwood, affirming that garbage left in a publicly accessible place does not enjoy Fourth Amendment protection.

10. State v. Hempele (1990, New Jersey Supreme Court)

• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

• Issue: Whether the state constitution requires a warrant for garbage searches.

• Holding: The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that under the state constitution, a warrant is required for garbage searches, providing more privacy protection than the U.S. Supreme Court did in Greenwood.

11. U.S. v. Jones (2012, U.S. Supreme Court)

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

• Issue: While not directly about garbage, this case re-emphasized the role of physical intrusion as a key factor in Fourth Amendment analysis, which could influence future garbage search cases.

• Holding: The Court ruled that physically placing a GPS device on a car constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

• Importance: This case highlights the evolving understanding of privacy and physical intrusion in modern Fourth Amendment cases, which might impact future rulings on garbage searches.

12. State v. Gregory (2021, Oregon Court of Appeals)

• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

• Issue: Whether the warrantless search of garbage left for collection violated the state constitution.

• Holding: The court ruled that garbage searches without a warrant violated the state constitution, despite Greenwood allowing it under the federal Constitution.

13. Supreme Court’s Most Current Standing on Garbage Searches (as of 2024)

• The most significant federal case on the issue remains California v. Greenwood (1988), which established that garbage left for collection is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Since then, there have been no major changes at the federal level regarding garbage searches. However, various state courts have provided more stringent protections under their state constitutions.

Summary of Current Law:

• Under federal law (California v. Greenwood), garbage left for collection in a publicly accessible place is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. However, several states, including New Hampshire and New Jersey, have ruled that their state constitutions require more privacy protections for garbage searches, necessitating a warrant in some cases.