Under the Fourth Amendment in the U.S Constitution, the law protects a person, house,
business, papers, and effects from unnecessary searches. Before the amendment, the law only protected against a governmental search that intruded on a person's body or business.
●
What was the Court of Appeal’s decision?
The Court of Appeal's decision was that the court concluded that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when the shredded garbage was dumped on a private road forty yards away, accessible to the public.
●
Was the search and seizure a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?
Yes, the search was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is because the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. Under this case, there was the approval of warrant-less search, and therefore it was unconstitutional. Warrant-less searches are presumed as unreasonable.
●
Would the result have been different if the dumpster was on private property rather than on commercial property?
Yes, the results would be different. In the sense that the defendant would have the protection of privacy surrounding his property as the Fourth Amendment dictates and hence would expect the court to rule in his favor due to intrusion of his privacy without a warrant.
●
Suppose you were an executive at Bet-Air. What recommendations would you make to help Bet-Air assert an expectation of privacy in the dumpster?
Measures that Bet-Air should put in place are Bet-Air should put measures to restrict the
public from accessing its dumped garbage, and it should also dispose of its garbage under their curtilage to prevent strangers from accessing the garbage. The garbage should also be properly shredded to the point of destruction to ensure that the company secrets do not land in the wrong hands.
