find yourself in the bible study: Growing Calls For Clinton FDN To Be Shut Down Amid...
California vs. Greenwood 1988
Posts
Comments
Basic Information
The architect Cass Gilbert had grand ambitions for his design of
a new home for the Supreme Court--what he called "the greatest tribunal
in the world, one of the three great elements of our national
government." Gilbert knew that the approach to the Court, as much as the
structure itself, would define the experience of the building, but the
site presented a challenge. Other exalted Washington edifices--the
Capitol, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial--inspired awe
with their processional approaches. But in 1928 Congress had designated
for the Court a cramped and asymmetrical plot of land, wedged tightly
between the Capitol and the Library of Congress. How could Gilbert
convey to visitors the magnitude and importance of the judicial process
taking place within the Court's walls?
The answer, he decided, was steps. Gilbert
pushed back the wings of the building, so that the public face of the
building would be a portico with a massive imposing stairway. Visitors
would not have to walk a long distance to enter, but few would forget
the experience of mounting those forty-four steps to the double row of
eight massive columns supporting the roof. The walk up the stairs would
be the central symbolic experience of the Supreme Court, a physical
manifestation of the American march to justice. The stairs separated the
Court from the everyday world--and especially from the earthly concerns
of the politicians in the Capitol-- and announced that the justices
would operate, literally, on a higher plane. (Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine:
Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Anchor Books,
2008.)
a new home for the Supreme Court--what he called "the greatest tribunal
in the world, one of the three great elements of our national
government." Gilbert knew that the approach to the Court, as much as the
structure itself, would define the experience of the building, but the
site presented a challenge. Other exalted Washington edifices--the
Capitol, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial--inspired awe
with their processional approaches. But in 1928 Congress had designated
for the Court a cramped and asymmetrical plot of land, wedged tightly
between the Capitol and the Library of Congress. How could Gilbert
convey to visitors the magnitude and importance of the judicial process
taking place within the Court's walls?
The answer, he decided, was steps. Gilbert
pushed back the wings of the building, so that the public face of the
building would be a portico with a massive imposing stairway. Visitors
would not have to walk a long distance to enter, but few would forget
the experience of mounting those forty-four steps to the double row of
eight massive columns supporting the roof. The walk up the stairs would
be the central symbolic experience of the Supreme Court, a physical
manifestation of the American march to justice. The stairs separated the
Court from the everyday world--and especially from the earthly concerns
of the politicians in the Capitol-- and announced that the justices
would operate, literally, on a higher plane. (Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine:
Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Anchor Books,
2008.)
Thursday, February 11, 2010
California vs. Greenwood 1988
What this case proves is that you
are never safe after you throw something away. The Supreme Court ruled
that once you put a trashcan on the street corner, the substances inside
are no longer you property and any officially can legally search the
contents. The case seems to go against the reasonable expectation of
privacy but it doesn't. Once you discard something, you made the
conscience decision that you no longer want the item, or whatever you
threw into the garbage can . So this case clearly deals with what you
throw away can come back to haunt you. The downside on the officials
side is that they have to actually prove that whatever found in the
trashcans were discarded by the person. Just remember, don't think that
throwing something away gets you out of trouble because it could
backfire on you later.
Facts of the Case:
Local
police suspected Billy Greenwood was dealing drugs from his residence.
Because the police did not have enough evidence for a warrant to search
his home, they searched the garbage bags Greenwood had left at the curb
for pickup. The police uncovered evidence of drug use, which was then
used to obtain a warrant to search the house. That search turned up
illegal substances, and Greenwood was arrested on felony charges.
Question:
Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood's garbage violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure guarantee?
Conclusion:
Voting
6 to 2, the Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is
unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court argued that there was no
reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets "readily
accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members
of the public." The Court also noted that the police cannot be expected
to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by "any member of the
public."[Oyez]
are never safe after you throw something away. The Supreme Court ruled
that once you put a trashcan on the street corner, the substances inside
are no longer you property and any officially can legally search the
contents. The case seems to go against the reasonable expectation of
privacy but it doesn't. Once you discard something, you made the
conscience decision that you no longer want the item, or whatever you
threw into the garbage can . So this case clearly deals with what you
throw away can come back to haunt you. The downside on the officials
side is that they have to actually prove that whatever found in the
trashcans were discarded by the person. Just remember, don't think that
throwing something away gets you out of trouble because it could
backfire on you later.
Facts of the Case:
Local
police suspected Billy Greenwood was dealing drugs from his residence.
Because the police did not have enough evidence for a warrant to search
his home, they searched the garbage bags Greenwood had left at the curb
for pickup. The police uncovered evidence of drug use, which was then
used to obtain a warrant to search the house. That search turned up
illegal substances, and Greenwood was arrested on felony charges.
Question:
Did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwood's garbage violate the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure guarantee?
Conclusion:
Voting
6 to 2, the Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is
unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. The Court argued that there was no
reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets "readily
accessible to animals, children, scavengers, snoops, and other members
of the public." The Court also noted that the police cannot be expected
to ignore criminal activity that can be observed by "any member of the
public."[Oyez]
Supreme Court Pages
Supreme Court Decisions
Posts
Comments
Followers
Administrator
Nikki
- This site is dedicated to facts concerning the Supreme Court and functions of the Supreme Court.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
is a great case to share with your peers. We tend to think of our
garbage as a place where no one wants to go. But, garbage is in fact
commonly rooted through and used against people.