[SPEAKER_02]: We'll hear our given next in number 86, 684, California versus Billy Greenwood and Diane Ben Hawkey.
[SPEAKER_03]: Hey everyone, this is Leon from Prologue Projects.
[SPEAKER_03]: On this week's episode of 5-4, Peter, Reannon and Michael are talking about California v. Greenwood.
[SPEAKER_03]: A case from 1988 by the Fourth Amendment and Trash.
[SPEAKER_03]: What was the last thing you threw away?
[SPEAKER_03]: Maybe it was just an innocent receipt, or maybe it was something more personal, like an empty medication bottle or a bank statement.
[SPEAKER_03]: In the case of Billy Greenwood, his trash contained evidence of illegal drug use.
[SPEAKER_03]: This came to the attention of police, who for weeks coordinated with Greenwood's local garbageman to have his trash separated and held for them to inspect.
[SPEAKER_03]: They did this without a warrant, but used the evidence they found from his garbage to later secure a warrant to search his house, where they eventually found illegal substances and arrested Greenwood on felony charges.
[SPEAKER_03]: Greenwood sued arguing that the search of his garbage violated his fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
[SPEAKER_03]: In a six-two decision, the court held that curbside garbage is not protected by the fourth amendment.
[SPEAKER_03]: This is five to four, a podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.
[SPEAKER_04]: Welcome to five to four where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have the based our civil rights.
[SPEAKER_04]: Like hosting a UFC fight at the White House is debasing our nation.
[SPEAKER_04]: I'm Keeter.
[SPEAKER_04]: I'm here with Michael.
[SPEAKER_02]: Hey everybody.
[SPEAKER_04]: And react.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, everybody.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know what?
[SPEAKER_00]: It's kind of like, okay, do you believe me now?
[SPEAKER_00]: I've been saying like this is America, you know, Trump reveals what America's true nature really is in here.
[SPEAKER_00]: Go.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't want to hear a single Democrat.
[SPEAKER_00]: I don't want to hear a single little righteous annoying little live online.
[SPEAKER_00]: Be like, oh, how America has fallen our image blah, blah, blah.
[SPEAKER_00]: No, this is the most genuine.
[SPEAKER_02]: the expression of the American Id.
[SPEAKER_00]: Exactly.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_02]: They're doing the way in at the Lincoln Memorial Baby and that is what we think about our fucking conquest of over the South.
[SPEAKER_04]: This is one of like the unequivocally funny things that have happened because first of all there's no real material downside.
[SPEAKER_04]: We were just talking about this before the show, but like the aesthetics are starting to match the American soul, you know what I mean?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, no more of like the high-minded.
[SPEAKER_04]: Oh, we're trying to evoke ancient Greece with our architecture.
[SPEAKER_04]: Right, none of that shit.
[SPEAKER_04]: No.
[SPEAKER_04]: Let's get Chris Angel floating above the Washington Monument.
[SPEAKER_04]: Let's get let's put fucking Michael Phelps in the reflecting pool.
[SPEAKER_00]: All right.
[SPEAKER_00]: Duck Dynasty guys need to be there need to have a prominent role.
[SPEAKER_04]: Absolutely, uh, what other bits can we think of there?
[SPEAKER_00]: Who else?
[SPEAKER_02]: Vince McMahon?
[SPEAKER_04]: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: Joe Rogan's gonna be there.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm sure.
[SPEAKER_04]: He's got a bit.
[SPEAKER_04]: You can't do the fights without Joe Rogan.
[SPEAKER_04]: Now, what are they going to do with the animal came immortal?
[SPEAKER_04]: It's right over there.
[SPEAKER_04]: Balls in your court Donald.
[SPEAKER_00]: than the Washington Memorial, you know, like America's penis, so valid.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's something I'm sure.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yep.
[SPEAKER_04]: World War II Memorial sucks too much to have anything to do anything fun with.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right.
[SPEAKER_04]: Let's move on.
[SPEAKER_04]: Today's case, California, the Greenwood case from 1988 about the Fourth Amendment, specifically about police going through your trash, in this case, some cops suspected a man named Billy Greenwood of dealing drugs, but they didn't have enough evidence for a warrant, so in order to gather evidence, they went through his trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: found evidence of drugs in the trash, and they use that evidence to obtain an executed warrant, which revealed drugs and ultimately led to Billy's conviction.
[SPEAKER_04]: Billy appealed saying, hey, fourth amendment, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: I have an expectation of privacy and the cops violated that by going through my trash without cause.
[SPEAKER_04]: but the Supreme Court in a six to two decision.
[SPEAKER_04]: So that that was fine.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, they sure did.
[SPEAKER_00]: Fourth Amendment does not apply to trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're saying here.
[SPEAKER_00]: So let's situate ourselves what happened in the case.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is early 1984, a totally different person who was suspected of totally different crimes.
[SPEAKER_00]: Unnamed person kind of gets the ball rolling here unfortunately for Billy Greenwood.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is a criminal suspect who was being investigated by the DEA and he told a federal agent that he knew about this big truck full of narcotics that was going to be delivered to a certain address.
[SPEAKER_00]: The federal agent runs the address and it comes back as the house of Billy Greenwood.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the feds let local police in Laguna Beach, California, and the Laguna Beach police department start to investigate Billy Greenwood's house.
[SPEAKER_00]: Start to set up some surveillance.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're had additionally been like a past report by a neighbor of Billy Greenwood that his house often had late night visitors, people who just stay for a few minutes and then leave.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, the investigator from the Laguna Beach Police Department at one point followed a car that had stopped at Billy Greenwood's house and that car went to get another house that had previously been investigated for drug trafficking.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yada Yada Yada, who fucking cares?
[SPEAKER_00]: Get a job.
[SPEAKER_00]: Oh, pigs.
[SPEAKER_00]: Get a real fucking job.
[SPEAKER_00]: Do something that matters.
[SPEAKER_00]: All right, so here at this point, the investigator decides to violate the Constitution.
[SPEAKER_00]: Let's just fast forward.
[SPEAKER_00]: Billy Greenwood's constitutional rights in the trash, as well as unfortunately evidence of crime in the trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: This investigator, she asks the trash collector in the neighborhood to collect Greenwood's trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: And instead of putting it with the rest of the neighborhood trash, like all in the same trash truck.
[SPEAKER_00]: Investigators says, hey, keep it separate and let me look through it.
[SPEAKER_00]: So a trash collector grabs the bags of Billy Greenwood's trash that are out on the curb out on the street and he keeps it separate, hands it over to this investigator and she looks through it.
[SPEAKER_00]: She finds evidence of drugs, which she then uses to get a warrant to search Billy Greenwood's house.
[SPEAKER_00]: So police searched the house.
[SPEAKER_00]: They execute that warrant.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's drug stuff in the house.
[SPEAKER_00]: Greenwood gets arrested and he posts bond.
[SPEAKER_00]: So he's released on bail.
[SPEAKER_00]: And while he's out on bail, the police do the same thing again.
[SPEAKER_00]: They search the trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: They get a warrant to search his house.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then they arrest him again on the basis of drug evidence found in the house when they executed the second warrant.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, just pausing right here.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is telling in terms of the order of operations here.
[SPEAKER_00]: The amount of evidence that they had before searching the trash before violating Billy Greenwood's constitutional rights, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: They had, you know, this sort of like tip that this other guy told the feds that Billy Greenwood's address might be a destination address for drugs.
[SPEAKER_00]: they see cars pulling up to greenwoods address and then leaving after just a few minutes.
[SPEAKER_00]: But police don't ask for a warrant at that point with that evidence.
[SPEAKER_00]: They only ask for a warrant to search the house.
[SPEAKER_00]: after they have looked through the trash and found that evidence of drugs because dear reader, dear listener, the evidence that they had before violating Billy Greenwood's constitutional rights is not enough to get a warrant.
[SPEAKER_00]: The state court of appeals, in fact, in California, holds that to be true.
[SPEAKER_00]: They say, you wouldn't have gotten a warrant, but for the trash search.
[SPEAKER_00]: You didn't have probable cause to justify a warrant.
[SPEAKER_00]: Before you look through the trash, so as Peter already said, you know, Billy Greenwood charged now with multiple drug offenses goes to trial gets convicted, but appeals because he says wait a second
[SPEAKER_00]: This search, it happened in violation of my constitutional rights, the Fourth Amendment protects me from unreasonable searches, and this search is unreasonable because I have an expectation of privacy about what goes into my trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: This gets a peeled, actually state courts in California agree with him, but once we get over into federal court, goes all the way up to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court says,
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: So talk about the law a bit.
[SPEAKER_04]: The fourth amendment says you cannot be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.
[SPEAKER_04]: So obviously the question before the court in these cases is always sort of what's reasonable.
[SPEAKER_04]: And courts have established a rule where the determination for what's reasonable revolves around whether or not you had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
[SPEAKER_04]: If there's no
[SPEAKER_04]: So the fundamental question here is, do people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their trash?
[SPEAKER_04]: Just as white, writes for the majority, he says Greenwood did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash because he had sufficiently exposed it to the public.
[SPEAKER_04]: And I'm going to read a lot of quotes from his opinion.
[SPEAKER_04]: He says,
[SPEAKER_04]: 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.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is goofy, dude.
[SPEAKER_00]: What is this analysis?
[SPEAKER_02]: That Coons goes through your trash, so the cops can't hold on.
[SPEAKER_04]: Before we get to the raccoons.
[SPEAKER_04]: First of all, he's just doing this analysis wrong.
[SPEAKER_04]: The question isn't how accessible your trash is, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: It's whether it's reasonable to expect it to remain private, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: So, yes, someone could in theory scavenge through your trash, but would you expect that to happen, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: How often did these things happen to most people?
[SPEAKER_04]: We were talking about this, like, in my entire life, I'm 40.
[SPEAKER_04]: Someone went through my trash and it was like teenagers like dumped our trash on the road right like just to be annoying They didn't they didn't go through it really as far as I know and you guys said it has never happened to you So our producer also has never had this happen.
[SPEAKER_04]: So a combined like a hundred and fifty years of living and it's happened once And a justice of the Supreme Court is being like well, yeah, of course, yeah, of course Everyone's going through the trash all the time
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: How often is a child sifting through your trash?
[SPEAKER_04]: She's like, everyone knows, snoops, children and scavengers.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, snoops and snoops are looking through their trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: Scavengers and snoops to different categories.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like, uh, he's just adding to the list.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like, what other word could I use?
[SPEAKER_00]: What other word could I use for someone who might be going through the trash?
[SPEAKER_00]: What about a different species?
[SPEAKER_04]: And but in general he's just sort of he's conflating these things and doing this analysis wrong Right, he's saying well, it's accessible to all of these different people and it's like okay Yes, but that is not what the fourth amendment protects against and that's not how the test works, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: You know, example we were talking about is like what if your garage is open or even your front door is unlocked.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah
[SPEAKER_04]: your garage or even your home becomes accessible to the public, but that doesn't mean it's not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's saying, it insane, inclusive.
[SPEAKER_04]: And also, why are you including animals?
[SPEAKER_04]: What if a raccoon goes through your trash?
[SPEAKER_04]: The raccoon's not like, oh, violating his shopping year.
[SPEAKER_02]: Wow, reading your receipts and being like, hmm, I don't know about that.
[SPEAKER_02]: You're not reading your receipts, bro.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_01]: your constitutional rights have not been violated.
[SPEAKER_04]: Like, remember when my first moved out to the burbs and raccoons were going through my trash, and I was like, fuck, but at no point was I was like, yeah, they're reading these, they're looking at my bills, like, I'm getting to see them.
[SPEAKER_04]: They're eating your rotting leftovers.
[SPEAKER_04]: Like, nothing.
[SPEAKER_04]: What does this have to do with privacy?
[SPEAKER_04]: Right, I also like mice can get into your house right, so the fourth amendment doesn't apply It's like we all know mice can get into the home and if if mice can get there Cops can go there too those those are the rules.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah
[SPEAKER_04]: God, it's it's just so weird.
[SPEAKER_04]: Not only does it get the test wrong, but it just fundamentally misunderstands the average person's expectations about what would happen with their trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, because anyone actually expect that people are going through their trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: Are you telling me that if you looked outside and you just saw it?
[SPEAKER_04]: A local, a local snoop going through your trash that you're just like, uh, another day in the neighborhood.
[SPEAKER_04]: Oh, that, that's snoop.
[SPEAKER_04]: So annoying, always looking through my trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: This is, of course, what we all know happens when I put your trash out.
[SPEAKER_04]: Get, no, get the fuck out of here.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, get out of here.
[SPEAKER_04]: Get my trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I think what we're getting at is like, everybody does actually have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: And these examples are like either so few and far between in their incidents in real life, or literally not,
[SPEAKER_00]: Relevant do not pose a real problem because he's talking about other species He's talking about animals not people that they're getting this like really really upside down I think the footnotes in this section just like this this quote about everybody knows animals and snoops and Everybody else can look through your trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's footnotes here, which are very telling so footnotes Of course, you know a citation to another case
[SPEAKER_00]: the majority just this way, you know, trying to like support the argument with like, oh, there are other cases that say this or, or, you know, reports or studies or, you know, what have you?
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, after animals, the word animals, there is a citation, there's a footnote.
[SPEAKER_00]: It is to a North Dakota case about a dog.
[SPEAKER_04]: bro, you know they were you know those clerks were scrambling if they they come back with a case from North Dakota North Dakota this isn't to Supreme Court case it's not even a federal case.
[SPEAKER_04]: He's like we have nothing in Illinois no sir.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is a north to go to case that is about a dog going through someone's trash and dragging the trash to a neighbor's yard.
[SPEAKER_00]: The neighbor puts that trash in his own trash can and then later when police have whatever suspicion about the trash, that neighbor gives consent for police to search the trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: So that is a hilarious sequence of events, by the way, that sounds like a law school hypothetical.
[SPEAKER_04]: I truly do not believe that happens.
[SPEAKER_02]: No, absolutely.
[SPEAKER_02]: That sounds like such a cool.
[SPEAKER_04]: Oh, sorry.
[SPEAKER_04]: The reason that's in my trash can is because my dog, like like bulb going off is that.
[SPEAKER_04]: He's like, yeah, my dog was going through the neighbors trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: flagged it into my yard, and then I put it into my trash can.
[SPEAKER_02]: How would the cops even know to ask the neighbor if any of the guys trash happens to be in your trash kid?
[SPEAKER_00]: This is so ridiculous.
[SPEAKER_04]: It doesn't even make sense.
[SPEAKER_04]: No, it's a defense.
[SPEAKER_04]: Right.
[SPEAKER_04]: The cops went through a guy's trash and he came up with a story about how it wasn't his neighbor actually.
[SPEAKER_00]: This was a neighbor's trash, not mine.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's absolutely ridiculous and it also is not the factual sequence that happened here.
[SPEAKER_00]: it also has nothing to do with this right it has nothing to do with this and also does not establish in any way that it is a regular expectation that animals go through your trash and therefore you don't expect privacy from people with regards to your trash it doesn't establish anything all right the next footnote about scavengers a citation to information about scavengers
[SPEAKER_00]: Justice White just says homeless people often go through trash, basically, just bald assertion, that's it.
[SPEAKER_02]: Drop a knowledge, dude.
[SPEAKER_02]: Taking judicial notice of the unhoused.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then also throws in a random reference to like a CD culture of dumpster diving and literally sites to like a dumpster diving coupon finding handbook.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, again, this is not supportive evidence or resource or reverence that supports any piece of this argument.
[SPEAKER_00]: Last footnote here, that's really, really telling, and Michael, you actually brought this up that, like, there's an example, like, in the 1970s Henry Kissinger.
[SPEAKER_00]: like a paparazzi or somebody went through his trash and it actually ended up being not only like embarrassing to Kissinger and his wife which fuck them everything they did and everything they lived was humiliating.
[SPEAKER_00]: But it ended up being like a huge public scandal because everybody was like that's too far, that's ridiculous.
[SPEAKER_00]: People expect privacy even in their trash Everybody like rejected this and was like no absolutely not nobody should be allowed to do that.
[SPEAKER_00]: Leave that poor man alone Yeah, this paparazzi or whatever was wrong, but note just this white
[SPEAKER_00]: citing this after snoops saying and in the citation in the footnote, white says even prominent people apparently like don't have this like really strong privacy right because look this this paparotto went through the trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: This reference shows the opposite of what you weren't arguing in the majority.
[SPEAKER_00]: It shows actually that this was a huge scandal.
[SPEAKER_00]: The public buy and large in a massive way rejected this was like this is ridiculous.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is a violation of this person's privacy.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is a violation of this person's, basically like home, property, you know, personal, personal privacy.
[SPEAKER_02]: And yeah, they're like, this is gutter journal is gross.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_02]: And we do like this.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it's one instance.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the Supreme Court citing this as an example of number one that this happens in any kind of widespread way.
[SPEAKER_01]: Right.
[SPEAKER_00]: And number two, that society does not have an expectation of privacy in trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is ridiculous.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, it's insane.
[SPEAKER_02]: It's insane.
[SPEAKER_04]: All right, let's continue.
[SPEAKER_04]: The opinion also says, quote, moreover, respondents placed their refuse at the curb for the express purpose of conveying it to a third party, the trash collector, who might himself have sorted through respondents trash or permitted others such as the police to do so, which like, again, yeah, your trash guy might go through your trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: But does anyone actually expect that he will, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: That's what you're supposed to be trying to figure out.
[SPEAKER_04]: Does anyone expect that their trash guy will?
[SPEAKER_04]: I would sort of assume that they're not going to, yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: Considering they're just picking up tons of trash all day.
[SPEAKER_04]: It doesn't seem like particularly likely.
[SPEAKER_04]: Also, I would assume, and I bet I'm right about this, even though I'm just guessing and forgot to look this up.
[SPEAKER_04]: That most of these companies and municipalities have policies that tell the trash to its don't go to people's trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it might just be like a CYA policy for the city or the company.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like you're increasing your own vulnerability to police questioning and investigation if you're looking through people's trash and you see stuff and now the police want to know what you got into and what you saw.
[SPEAKER_04]: you know like also if you if you are like out there are a lot of trash companies are private and if you're trying to compete in the marketplace you might want to be the company that doesn't look for your customers track right yeah you might not want to be the creeps we're rejected by society
[SPEAKER_04]: He continues to do this thing where it's just sort of like, look, other people could be going through your trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: And it's like, yeah, I know.
[SPEAKER_02]: I don't get this in like, that doesn't mean I expect it.
[SPEAKER_02]: In fact, I expect the opposite.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_02]: This really bugs me because like,
[SPEAKER_02]: The third party thing, not all third parties are the same and not all instances of handing things over to third parties are the same, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: And the court just treats it as like this bright line thing, like, once you could do something to a third party, you have no more expectation of privacy in it.
[SPEAKER_02]: And that's just not true, like, yeah, they treat it like a rule.
[SPEAKER_04]: Once you hand something over to someone,
[SPEAKER_04]: All privacy rights are waived.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: That's not how anything works.
[SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I think just the facts of this go to the point that like, no, you actually do expect your trash to be very anonymous in private.
[SPEAKER_04]: I expect them to do a very specific thing with my trash, and that's bring it to the dump.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, and the cops had to ask them to segregate the trash, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: It wasn't like they just could go up to the trash person at the end of the route and be like, all right, we want to find Billy Greenwood's trash because it's all mixed in with a mess of shit and probably compressed multiple times and
[SPEAKER_02]: So like literally the trash collector has to do something they wouldn't normally do and Segregate it to keep it like identifiable, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: Like that's the like the very facts of this sort of defeat the idea that your privacy Expectations are evaporated once you hand it over like if anything you expect it
[SPEAKER_02]: to immediately become anonymized, to just get in with a bunch of other people's trash, get intermingled, and no longer identifiable to you before it even gets to the dump, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: Right?
[SPEAKER_02]: Like that's what you expect.
[SPEAKER_04]: And the idea that when you hand something over to a third party, you just no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
[SPEAKER_04]: I think about how much like data and information you hand over to third parties.
[SPEAKER_04]: With the expectation that you're handing it over
[SPEAKER_00]: And courts have waited on this and said, in many instances, you hand over information, personal information, you give up your property, even physical, you know, property objects, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: You might give over to a third party in so many situations.
[SPEAKER_00]: You're male, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: There are court cases that say sealed male is protected by the privacy interest and therefore protected by the Fourth Amendment.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, the data on your phone, the content of your
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: And when you hand over your trash to the trash guy, you're not being like, hey, it's yours now, dude, do whatever.
[SPEAKER_04]: Like that's not the message that we all believe that we're conveying when we hand over the trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: Like, you know, this is for a little treat for you.
[SPEAKER_03]: What it would, whatever you feel like doing.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's like, go wild.
[SPEAKER_04]: This is the fucking landfill.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: Mix it in with the massive pile of trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: That way, no one ever sees it again.
[SPEAKER_04]: The entire premise of the, the white majority seems built around like,
[SPEAKER_04]: We all know, everyone's going through our trash all the time.
[SPEAKER_04]: So, right.
[SPEAKER_04]: And that's just the way things are.
[SPEAKER_04]: And it's like, no, I don't think that's true.
[SPEAKER_04]: I don't think that's correct at all.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, there's also a very convenient for the majority, kind of mixing up confusion about where the expectation of privacy applies.
[SPEAKER_00]: The fourth amendment, the constitution, is about government action.
[SPEAKER_00]: The fourth amendment protects you from government intrusion, from unreasonable
[SPEAKER_00]: searches and seizures by the government, meaning of course in most situations law enforcement.
[SPEAKER_00]: Here, just as white is talking about all of these examples of not government parties, individuals who are not law enforcement, other species.
[SPEAKER_00]: that might have access to your trash and you might not have a expectation of privacy from.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay, so even assuming that we as a society do think that neighbors and whoever it's not our trash isn't private from them, we don't expect it to be
[SPEAKER_00]: to be private from all of these other parties.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's still not the analysis because your expectation of privacy in terms of the fourth amendment is about what the state does.
[SPEAKER_00]: It doesn't matter if you think something is not private in terms of action by somebody else, a non-state actor.
[SPEAKER_00]: The constitution is about the state action as to you.
[SPEAKER_02]: I was thinking about this as like,
[SPEAKER_02]: You know, if I want to withdraw more money than I can at an ATM, I have to go to the bank and I have to put in my little pin and a teller gets to look at my bank account and see what my balance is and if he or she wants, probably look at all like my recent transactions.
[SPEAKER_02]: There is a moment where that information is being revealed to a third party.
[SPEAKER_02]: I don't expect that person to actually go through all my shit right then in there and be like, ooh, what has he been up to?
[SPEAKER_02]: And I certainly do not expect him to print it out and hand it over to a cop, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: Right?
[SPEAKER_02]: Because, hey,
[SPEAKER_02]: I'm a third party.
[SPEAKER_02]: I can see this.
[SPEAKER_02]: So therefore you have no privacy interest in it at all.
[SPEAKER_02]: Anymore, like, what the fuck are you talking about?
[SPEAKER_02]: Like, and this is something where like, it's not just like, they have the receptacle, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: They're looking into my bank account.
[SPEAKER_02]: They're looking at my transaction history.
[SPEAKER_02]: And I still have an expectation of privacy in that that they're not just going to disclose it to whoever.
[SPEAKER_02]: It's bizarre how
[SPEAKER_02]: disconnected the analysis from how people think and behave.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: He also says furthermore, as we have held, the police cannot reasonably be expected to avert their eyes from evidence of criminal activity that could have been observed by any member of the public.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's like, bro, avert their eyes.
[SPEAKER_04]: The cops fully coordinated with the garbage man, dude.
[SPEAKER_04]: They fully talked to the garbage man and were like, preserve this guy's trash
[SPEAKER_02]: not just once.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's not like they were strolling by and there is paraphernalia on the ground outside the stew's house.
[SPEAKER_04]: I think that white is eluding to the plain view doctrine which basically means that like if something is in plain view, if it's in plain sight, it's fair game for police.
[SPEAKER_04]: So if a cop like walks up to your car and sees drug paraphernalia plainly visible in the front seat,
[SPEAKER_04]: Right.
[SPEAKER_04]: The fact that it's in the car doesn't prevent the cop from being like, hey, that's drugs.
[SPEAKER_03]: You're committed to crime.
[SPEAKER_04]: Right.
[SPEAKER_04]: But this isn't anything like that.
[SPEAKER_04]: Right.
[SPEAKER_04]: There's nothing in plain sight here.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: The cops are just going through his trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: Like rats.
[SPEAKER_04]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: Who's there?
[SPEAKER_04]: They're they're actively taking steps.
[SPEAKER_04]: to coordinate with other people to get this man's trash that has nothing to do with Averting their eyes like a very what you fucking talking about.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, what are you fucking talking about?
[SPEAKER_04]: at this point I was like what's going on here like what's going on with this decision right yeah oh the police cannot be expected to avert their eyes avert their eyes dude yeah yeah they had a full they did a certain dude yeah they had a certain word they took action to reveal this to themselves bro they turned a garbage man into a CI like what what are you talking about what what what's going on here that it's so uh it's like play it
[SPEAKER_04]: Oh, what?
[SPEAKER_04]: I got to vert my eyes now.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's like, what do you, you just, you fucking had his trash set aside and then opened it up and went through it.
[SPEAKER_04]: That's right.
[SPEAKER_04]: Like, it's what it was going on.
[SPEAKER_04]: At the end of the day, this is just so disconnected from the normal human experience and normal human expectations in a situation where the courts go.
[SPEAKER_04]: The legal test revolves around figuring out what would a reasonable person expect here.
[SPEAKER_04]: I just refused to believe that if I had popped outside Justice White House and just started going through his trash, then he would be like, nothing going on.
[SPEAKER_04]: nothing going on here.
[SPEAKER_04]: I didn't expect that to be part of the human experience.
[SPEAKER_00]: I was handing that over to the world.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: Enjoy, sir.
[SPEAKER_04]: Enjoy my trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: I just don't believe that is what just is white.
[SPEAKER_04]: Actually, thank you.
[SPEAKER_02]: No, no.
[SPEAKER_02]: It's absurd.
[SPEAKER_02]: Hey everybody, if you're like me, your sleep is really important.
[SPEAKER_02]: If I get a few nights of bad sleep in a row, I'm a mess.
[SPEAKER_02]: You want to talk about night sweats?
[SPEAKER_02]: For me, a good night's sleep is of the utmost importance.
[SPEAKER_02]: And that's why I'm excited to share with you our new sponsor, cozy Earth.
[SPEAKER_00]: Cosiereth is actually the best.
[SPEAKER_00]: Before they were giving us money for ads, I have actually purchased Cosiereth pajamas and I loved them.
[SPEAKER_00]: And now I have Cosiereth sheets and boy are they lovely.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like it's like soft without being hot.
[SPEAKER_04]: Our listenership prefer being asleep, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: To escape the waking nightmares of the actual world.
[SPEAKER_04]: That's right.
[SPEAKER_00]: Some of you freak say you're listening to five to four while you're falling asleep.
[SPEAKER_04]: There's a risk-free purchase, there's a 100-night sleep trial, there's a 10-year warranty.
[SPEAKER_02]: That's just a good saliv warranty for sheets.
[SPEAKER_00]: Really built to last.
[SPEAKER_02]: Discover how care in every detail transforms simple routines into moments of true comfort and ease.
[SPEAKER_02]: At decosiers.com and use our code 5-4 all spelled out for up to 20% off.
[SPEAKER_02]: That's code 5-4 all spelled out for up to 20% off.
[SPEAKER_02]: And if you get a post-purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here.
[SPEAKER_02]: Experience the craft behind the comfort and make everyday feel intentionally.
[SPEAKER_02]: Brennan has a descent joined by Marshall.
[SPEAKER_02]: It's pretty good.
[SPEAKER_02]: He opens with a point that we have a media, but it's worth making, which is not just that they had the scheme to set aside the trash, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: But that it wasn't like it was the first time.
[SPEAKER_02]: Like they got a bag of trash and were like, oh, here's drug paraphernalia.
[SPEAKER_02]: It took two months, they did it every week for two months before they found evidence of a crime.
[SPEAKER_02]: Like, it was intrusive.
[SPEAKER_02]: It was extremely extended surveillance and intrusive, repeated searching of his trash, which I think, again, goes to a lot of what we're saying.
[SPEAKER_00]: The averting the eyes thing, like, what are you talking about?
[SPEAKER_02]: Right.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_02]: What are you talking about?
[SPEAKER_02]: We once again for the sixth time in the last few months refused to avert our eyes from the trash that we have set aside and collected.
[SPEAKER_02]: Cereptitiously.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_02]: He also, you know, talks a lot about what we talked about with the paparazzi and Kissinger and he writes very well about it.
[SPEAKER_02]: And I think it's something that justices don't do much anymore, but I wish they did.
[SPEAKER_02]: Because it's sort of like a why are we doing this sort of philosophical jerk-off exercise here about like what people would think we can just look at how people reacted to get Yeah, right like it's very There's something very tangible about this sort of analysis where he's like people were upset like what are we talking about like you want to know Whether there's a reason why expectation of privacy people were unhappy with the reporter the tabulate reporter who did this like
[SPEAKER_02]: you know like we don't need to do a thought exercise here we can just look at people reacted there's something very appealing to me about that yeah he took an interesting tact though that i think is worth describing he talked a lot about like containers and conveyances and and the idea like there's a line of cases that's like a very sort of small the democratic
[SPEAKER_02]: approach to the fourth amendment about how you carry things in the idea of being like well yeah sure you have an expectation of privacy and stuff you keep in like a locked box right if you have like a safe or something like a lock box that's very secure you only you know the the code yeah you have an expectation of privacy in that but why should someone who can't afford that right maybe who can't afford a fancy lock box
[SPEAKER_02]: maybe can't afford a car to drive it around and it has to walk and carry something why should they have less of an expectation of privacy in their things and so yeah also if you have an opaque plastic bag and you're carrying your stuff in that you also have an expectation of privacy in that like it's your stuff
[SPEAKER_02]: it's closed, it's opaque.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, just because it's less secure, doesn't mean you have no expectation of privacy.
[SPEAKER_02]: And he's like sealed containers, man.
[SPEAKER_02]: He used opaque trash bags.
[SPEAKER_02]: He sealed them.
[SPEAKER_02]: Like, right, of course he has an expectation of privacy.
[SPEAKER_02]: And this is like black letter law that we've decided.
[SPEAKER_02]: Why is it different?
[SPEAKER_02]: when he's, if he was like carrying this home, then if he's leaving it out to be immediately anonymized in with a bunch of other people's trash and disposed of for presumably forever, right, to never be tied to him or thought about again.
[SPEAKER_02]: Like why would your expectation of privacy disappear right in that moment as you are like conveying it away?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I think it's a sharp way to think about it and sort of like highlights if if you take this analysis seriously Then then maybe the majority is analysis seriously, then it seems like maybe rich people get more privacy More reason like right like oh you live in a gated community you have an HOA you use like a very You know Tony private trash collector.
[SPEAKER_04]: No scavengers no snoops.
[SPEAKER_02]: We kill raccoons on site no scavengers no snoops no cops.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah
[SPEAKER_00]: Like, yeah, do homeless people as just as white asserts, they go through people's trash, do homeless people go through trash and just as white's neighborhood, I doubt it, write it.
[SPEAKER_00]: So you're just saying that if you're poor, you must have a lower expectation of privacy.
[SPEAKER_00]: And unfortunately, for the constitution, that means a lower expectation of privacy from the state that you are more exposed as a poor person,
[SPEAKER_00]: Which of course we know, in fact, to be true, but that's what this ruling is saying and it is a really sharp point in the descent, I think.
[SPEAKER_02]: So yeah, actually I was going to say, so my one complaint about the descent would be that I don't think he, he like teases this idea out with this line of cases, but he doesn't explicitly say it and I feel like he should, which is the practical outcome of this is that like, yeah, you live in a pricey apartment building where the trash is inside your, you know,
[SPEAKER_04]: One thing I keep thinking of here is that like I feel like your expectation of privacy in your trash is Even greater than a lot of the situations where the law does give you a lot of privacy protects.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, like cars get like
[SPEAKER_04]: you know, a medium amount of privacy, potentially not as much as a home, but a good amount, right, cops just can't pop into your car.
[SPEAKER_00]: Certain containers, like Michael is saying, right, like your bag, your suitcase, some kinds of things.
[SPEAKER_04]: Just off the dome, talking to the listeners, ask yourself, would your rather have a stranger, search your car, or your trash?
[SPEAKER_04]: That's right.
[SPEAKER_04]: I'm not in my mind.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's pretty clear.
[SPEAKER_04]: I'd rather have them search my car.
[SPEAKER_04]: The shit that you throw into the trash, like your receipts, your bills, right, my fucking pin numbers, probably on some piece of trash I threw out at one point, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, and, you know, as someone who takes a lot of medication, your prescriptions, you know, your prescription bottle can be in a trash, like there's just so much personal information in your trash.
[SPEAKER_04]: That sort of stuff is just inherently private.
[SPEAKER_04]: And I think people expect that they'll remain private.
[SPEAKER_04]: And it's bizarre that he just sort of imagines that you're forfitting it.
[SPEAKER_04]: Then you compare that with something like a car where there's no, like, inherent reason.
[SPEAKER_04]: There's no, there's no, like a particularly abstract reason why you'd think that's ultra private.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's just that he's like, wow, we all sort of, we all, no one, you don't want people going through your car, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, yeah, there's sort of like a normative analysis.
[SPEAKER_04]: Well, like the police shouldn't be able to just go through your car whenever you want, you know, if you're going to boil it down to one reason why the car would be protected from the police.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's because your shit isn't there, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: I should say the trash too.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, yeah, I think this is a really good point Peter about like just ask like take a survey of the public and ask Do you want a police officer right now to go through your car or to go through your trash and?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I agree.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think most people would be like go through my car.
[SPEAKER_00]: Don't go through my trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know if given the choice and This really exposes the really problematic improper
[SPEAKER_00]: test that white is applying in the majority.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like the test here is, they're supposed to be a test applied about whether or not, you know, there's an expectation of privacy in this trash, for example.
[SPEAKER_00]: And the test is like, it's supposed to be a sort of like objective standard.
[SPEAKER_00]: The question is, does society at large,
[SPEAKER_00]: have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this area, in the trash in the car, etc.
[SPEAKER_00]: And Justice White says early on, we are not prepared.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's like this really strong pronouncement saying that we could only rule that there's an expectation of privacy in trash if society is ready to make that pronouncement and we don't agree.
[SPEAKER_00]: We don't think society is ready.
[SPEAKER_04]: One day, maybe.
[SPEAKER_04]: Just in the morning.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: I guess in our barbarian society, we're not ready.
[SPEAKER_00]: We haven't.
[SPEAKER_00]: Privacy.
[SPEAKER_04]: The level of enlightenment.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's very, very strange.
[SPEAKER_00]: There are lots of conditions that have to be met.
[SPEAKER_00]: If you look at other exceptions to the warrant requirement, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant for searches and seizures.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's what makes most searches and seizures reasonable.
[SPEAKER_00]: And if something is an unreasonable search or seizure, obviously, that's a violation of your fourth amendment, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: But there are some legal exceptions to the warrant requirement, where the fourth amendment, where it's been ruled by, you know, courts over decades, that it still is a reasonable search or seizure, even without a warrant, and there's categories of exceptions.
[SPEAKER_00]: Peter mentioned, plain view, doctrine.
[SPEAKER_00]: If somethings in plain view, yeah, the cop doesn't have to get a warrant for it, consent.
[SPEAKER_00]: If the cops come to your house and say, can I search your house?
[SPEAKER_00]: And you say, yes, you can search my house.
[SPEAKER_00]: You've consented, the cops don't have to get a warrant that's not an unreasonable search.
[SPEAKER_00]: So there are these big categories, but note how specific they are and what conditions have to be met.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's not just like this vague thing.
[SPEAKER_00]: There's also exceptions sometimes to the warrant requirement that are about like what you do with pieces of property.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is like the concept in property law of like abandonment.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like if you truly intend to
[SPEAKER_00]: to let something go and actually intend to give meaningful legal ownership of a piece of property to somebody else, then maybe you have less of an expectation of privacy there or like cartilage.
[SPEAKER_00]: cartilage is a property concept that's like not just the building of your house or the structure of your house, but there's an area around it, your yard up to the fence, this kind of idea that
[SPEAKER_00]: There are these vague references in the majority here to like, oh, well, trash is abandoned.
[SPEAKER_00]: Or, oh, well, trash is placed out on the street.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's outside the kernelage of the home.
[SPEAKER_00]: And both of these, I just want to make explicit, like, as a reference to supporting the holding are ridiculous, because there are multiple Supreme Court cases that say that property
[SPEAKER_00]: law concepts like abandonment and curdleage do not override the constitutional protection around the things that human beings have an expectation of privacy in, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: For abandonment like the Supreme Court has recognized in other cases that even if somebody abandons some piece of property they might still retain a privacy interest.
[SPEAKER_00]: Even if you intend to give ownership of something to somebody else and let it go, you might still retain a privacy interest in some important things, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: For curdleage, this is a super outdated standard.
[SPEAKER_00]: And there's an important case, which Michael, I think you're about to talk about, called cats, which sets this privacy standard.
[SPEAKER_00]: And cats says that the fourth amendment protects people not places.
[SPEAKER_00]: So the Supreme Court has ruled that things outside of the cartilage of a home obviously involve an expectation of privacy in tons of situations and sometimes like the flip, of course, some things inside the cartilage of the home.
[SPEAKER_00]: Don't involve an expectation of privacy.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, you know, just sort of like these vague references to like, oh, well, you know, there's these property law concepts, abandonment, courage, this kind of thing, which also weigh in favor of Billy Green would not having a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is, this is really, really insufficient legal argument.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: It reminds me, remember Florida V. Riley, the case about airborne surveillance.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_04]: Where the court, the court basically held,
[SPEAKER_04]: It's okay for like the police without a warrant to hover in a helicopter.
[SPEAKER_04]: Observe your yard from the sky as long as they're in a place that the public could legally be.
[SPEAKER_04]: And it's predicated on the same fallacy, the same misunderstanding of the standard here by saying, Well, if it's technically accessible to the public, then it's fine.
[SPEAKER_04]: And it's like, no, the question is, do you expect?
[SPEAKER_04]: Read the reasonably expect that you will be spied on from the sky.
[SPEAKER_04]: That is the question you need to be answering.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's your privacy that is concerned of the Fourth Amendment.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: Do you reasonably expect that someone will go through your trash, right?
[SPEAKER_04]: Our producer pointed out if you're doing this accessibility idea.
[SPEAKER_04]: Well, the trash is accessible to scavengers and snoops and children and raccoons.
[SPEAKER_04]: Isn't it just as accessible as your mail?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: Can they go through it?
[SPEAKER_04]: Can other people go through it?
[SPEAKER_04]: Right?
[SPEAKER_04]: What is the law expect there?
[SPEAKER_04]: This standard just does not make sense.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's just a way for them to dodge the actual standard.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, and so it's worth talking about the standard in this case cats, because cats was like a, it was a win of privacy rights, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: Like before cats, the fourth amendment was very much tethered in what was called like trespass doctrine and the idea was like, the police couldn't trespass your person or your property.
[SPEAKER_02]: They couldn't go on to your property without your consent.
[SPEAKER_02]: They couldn't like,
[SPEAKER_02]: Physically, like remove your coat and go through your pockets and things.
[SPEAKER_02]: Those are trespasses to your person.
[SPEAKER_02]: Prettress passes to your property.
[SPEAKER_02]: And those things implicate the fourth amendment, those sorts of trespasses.
[SPEAKER_02]: And that was like the sort of long and short of it.
[SPEAKER_02]: And cats was like,
[SPEAKER_02]: No, that was a case where there was no trespass because the cops just tapped like a public phone, like a pay phone, and then just listen to this one guy who regularly used the pay phone, right, and listen to his conversations.
[SPEAKER_02]: And, and cats was like, no, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy that your phone calls even on public pay phones are not being listened to by police or anybody for that matter.
[SPEAKER_02]: So this was supposed to expand the sphere of your privacy, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: The realm of your personal life that is safe from government intrusion, and instead it has been sort of perverted in a lot of ways and used as like a lever to open up more of your private life to inspection by saying, like, yeah, no,
[SPEAKER_02]: a 747 might fly over your house at 30,000 feet.
[SPEAKER_02]: So why can't cops hover over it at 50 feet with binoculars?
[SPEAKER_04]: Your body's covered in bacteria and microscopic organisms, so clearly the police can search your person.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yes, this is just basic basic science folks.
[SPEAKER_02]: The fact that this is what has happened with this test
[SPEAKER_02]: is especially like problematic now where in an age of like digital surveillance and just massive compilations of our data being out everywhere right and handed over to third parties often times without our knowledge and without any real meaningful consent right like maybe some click rat bullshit.
[SPEAKER_02]: But, you know, your devices are listening to you and serving you, customized ads based on what you're talking about.
[SPEAKER_02]: Your doorbell is videoing you and your neighborhood, and if you are unlucky, handing that over to the police when they ask for it.
[SPEAKER_02]: The world is becoming less private in general, and so this attitude about what isn't reasonable to expect to be private, that the courts have taken, which has been one that's very permissive of cops violating your privacy, has become a problem for how society functions generally.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, that's totally right.
[SPEAKER_00]: Cats was supposed to be expansive.
[SPEAKER_00]: Was supposed to expand the scope of what is protected by the Fourth Amendment, by creating that standard about the expectation of privacy, and then what you see after cats, and you see it so clearly in this case,
[SPEAKER_00]: is the Supreme Court like using the standard about the expectation of privacy to like shred it and to make sure that an expectation of privacy is like something that is just like so bare bones and not the more expansive view that cats was proposing.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, it's one more thing I want to talk about re-in and talked about this in prepping.
[SPEAKER_02]: I think it's worth saying there's like a sort of a kill the cop in your head idea that we should tease out here because we have talked at length about how people we believe people would respond how we would respond if you saw just like your neighbor going through your trash right you'd be upset and how people responded to like
[SPEAKER_02]: paparazzi going through Kissinger's trash.
[SPEAKER_02]: They were upset, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: They didn't like it.
[SPEAKER_02]: And I think all that's true.
[SPEAKER_02]: At the same time in popular media, pops are regularly depicted as going through people's trash and it's depicted heroically, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: And it's depicted favorably.
[SPEAKER_02]: And
[SPEAKER_02]: people like it.
[SPEAKER_02]: They like watching the cops find a shredded document and piece it together a bit by bit until they've revealed this secret, you know, smoke begun.
[SPEAKER_02]: The murder.
[SPEAKER_02]: Right.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's a savvy detective move.
[SPEAKER_02]: Right.
[SPEAKER_02]: Exactly.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_02]: There's a segment of the public that enjoys watching the cops do things.
[SPEAKER_02]: They would not accept from their neighbors, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: And that's important for a couple of reasons.
[SPEAKER_02]: I think one, it's what allows the majority to get away with shit like this, right?
[SPEAKER_02]: Two, like the test isn't, you know, the reason we'll expectation of privacy isn't just like, well, it's okay if cops do it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_02]: The whole point that Justice White is making is that cops are being held to the same standard as everyone else.
[SPEAKER_02]: If you don't think your neighbors should be going through your trash, then the cops can't either.
[SPEAKER_02]: If you don't expect your neighbors to go through your trash, then your expectation of privacy in your trash is reasonable and the cops can't violate it.
[SPEAKER_02]: They don't get to do things other people don't get to do.
[SPEAKER_02]: They don't get to violate your privacy in ways that other people don't get to.
[SPEAKER_02]: That's what makes it a reasonable expectation.
[SPEAKER_02]: I don't expect my neighbor to go through red trash.
[SPEAKER_02]: Therefore, the cops cannot go through my trash.
[SPEAKER_02]: Right?
[SPEAKER_02]: That's the test.
[SPEAKER_02]: And in that disjunction is doing a lot of work here in the majority.
[SPEAKER_02]: And I think it does a lot of work in general in what people accept and don't accept from the police.
[SPEAKER_00]: will end the proliferation of this police practice, which now means that people accept this and just hear it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right.
[SPEAKER_02]: Just hear it.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like, police are allowed to do that.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's not a violation of your rights and people just kind of internalize that, accept it wholeheartedly.
[SPEAKER_00]: Like, that's because of this case.
[SPEAKER_04]: Right.
[SPEAKER_04]: Also, I had throw me in as council or a argument here.
[SPEAKER_04]: I cleaned up nine o'clock for the good guys and we'll just show up.
[SPEAKER_04]: They'd start asking questions and say, I'm going to stop you.
[SPEAKER_04]: I brought a bag of each of your trash and I had someone take and you can either give me this win right now or I'm going to read it all into the public record.
[SPEAKER_04]: We're just going to go through the contents folks.
[SPEAKER_04]: Let me know.
[SPEAKER_04]: Let me know where you guys are.
[SPEAKER_00]: Let me know where you guys are.
[SPEAKER_04]: Let me know where you guys are.
[SPEAKER_00]: Let me know where you guys are.
[SPEAKER_00]: Let me know where
[SPEAKER_04]: What a one.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, they don't put free thinkers like me in front of the Supreme Court for that reason Too powerful too effective
[SPEAKER_04]: I would do the same thing for no matter what the case was about, by the way, give me the win or I'm going to redo.
[SPEAKER_04]: I'm going to do the contents of your thrash into the record.
[SPEAKER_01]: That's how absolute this expectation of privacy is called.
[SPEAKER_04]: Until you overturn California every green wood, I am going to be using those tactics.
[SPEAKER_04]: Alright folks, next week Patreon episode, Mailbag episode.
[SPEAKER_04]: Send us any questions you have, preferably about the law.
[SPEAKER_04]: And not about our favorite food, or some super shit like that.
[SPEAKER_04]: You know, you guys know I love the disparage of those inner questions.
[SPEAKER_04]: And I'll be doing it in advance this time.
[SPEAKER_04]: Follow us on social media at 5.4 pod, subscribe to our patreon patreon.com slash 5.4 pod all spelled out for access to premium and add free episodes, special events, our slack, all sorts of shit.
[SPEAKER_04]: See you next week.
[SPEAKER_02]: Bye everybody.
[SPEAKER_00]: Adios.
[SPEAKER_02]: Five to four is presented by prologue projects.
[SPEAKER_02]: This episode was produced by Allison Rogers.
[SPEAKER_02]: The onafoc provides editorial support.
[SPEAKER_02]: Our website was designed by Peter Murphy.
[SPEAKER_02]: Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips and Y.
[SPEAKER_02]: And our theme song is by Spatial Relations.