Third party doctrine

Question 1

Smith v Maryland

Answer 1

Facts
In the case of Smith v. Maryland, the petitioner, Michael Lee Smith, was implicated in a robbery case. Following the robbery, the victim began receiving threatening and obscene phone calls from an individual claiming to be the robber. The police, suspecting Smith due to his use of a vehicle matching the victim’s description and after spotting him near the victim’s neighborhood, requested the telephone company to install a pen register at its central offices to record numbers dialed from Smith’s home without obtaining a warrant. The pen register recorded a call from Smith’s home to the victim, contributing to his arrest and subsequent conviction for robbery. Smith challenged the admissibility of the evidence obtained from the pen register, arguing that the police’s failure to secure a warrant prior to the device’s installation violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

Issue
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, thereby requiring a warrant.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that the installation and use of a pen register by the police, without obtaining a warrant, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals, which had found no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed on a telephone system, and thus, no “search” within the Fourth Amendment’s scope had occurred.

Question 2

California v Greenwood

Answer 2

Facts
In early 1984, the Laguna Beach Police Department, led by Investigator Jenny Stracner, began surveillance on Billy Greenwood, suspecting him of narcotics trafficking. Based on tips and observations of suspicious activities at Greenwood’s residence, Stracner arranged for the collection and examination of Greenwood’s garbage, left outside his home for collection. The garbage revealed evidence of narcotics use, leading to the issuance of a search warrant for Greenwood’s home, where police discovered drugs, resulting in Greenwood’s arrest. Following a second instance of garbage examination and subsequent home search, more evidence was found, and Greenwood was arrested again. The Superior Court dismissed the charges against Greenwood, citing a violation of the Fourth Amendment and California Constitution due to the warrantless trash searches. The Court of Appeal affirmed, but the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
The central legal question was whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.