Discuss searches of public places

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Suggested answer:
The Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy. Common land, or that which is open to the public, can be searched without a warrant, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, a reasonable expectation of privacy exists within the curtilage, or the immediate area, surrounding the residence. However, some areas are not easily defined as either private or public; for example, public telephone booths, garbage, driveways, and vacated hotel rooms.
The courts have decided many cases that have helped to define what is considered to be private. The case that determined the recognized standard of reasonable expectation of privacy was Katz v. U.S. as it set boundaries for wiretapping. The Supreme Court set forth a two-prong test in order to determine privacy: First, the individual must show that he or she expected privacy. Second, that expectation should be reasonable.
Although driveways fall within the general definition of curtilage, garbage that is placed out on the street does not. In California v. Greenwood, the Court stated that Greenwood did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with his garbage when he put the garbage in front of his house. Investigators who looked through the garbage to determine whether Greenwood was involved in drug trafficking did not violate Greenwood's right to privacy. Similarly, individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to abandoned property–such as vacated hotel rooms–and the police can search this without violating an individual's Fourth Amendment rights.
In the case of Bond v. United States, Steven Bond was travelling on a Greyhound bus from California to Little Rock, Texas. When the bus was stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint in Texas, an officer boarded the bus to check the immigration status of all the passengers. As the agent checked the immigration status of passengers, he squeezed any soft luggage in the overhead bin along the way. When he reached Bond's green canvas bag, he felt a "brick like" object inside. When Bond admitted the bag was his, he consented to the search which revealed a brick of methamphetamine wrapped in duct tape and rolled inside pants. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Bond, by his conduct, exhibited an actual expectation of privacy because he had used an opaque bag that was placed directly above him. Thus, Bond's expectation that others would not touch his bag in exploratory searches was a reasonable expectation of privacy.