United States v. Kenneth H. Hedrick
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 155, 1991 WL 661, 922 F.2d 396 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection within the curtilage of a home if the garbage is readily accessible and visible to the public, thereby rendering any expectation of privacy objectively unreasonable.
Facts:
- Kenneth H. Hedrick placed his trash in opaque bags inside garbage cans with closed lids.
- The garbage cans were permanently located on Hedrick's driveway, on his private property.
- The cans were situated 50 feet from his house, 20 feet from his garage, 25-30 feet from the street, and 18 feet from the public sidewalk.
- A garbage service collected the trash from this location on a regular schedule.
- Police officers, without a warrant, entered Hedrick's property at night before the scheduled pickup.
- The officers hid behind trees and bushes as they approached the cans to avoid being seen from the house.
- The officers seized the garbage bags from the cans and searched their contents.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Kenneth H. Hedrick on thirteen counts.
- Hedrick was tried in a bench trial before a federal district court judge (court of first instance).
- During the trial, Hedrick made a motion to suppress evidence seized from the warrantless search of his residential garbage.
- The district court judge denied the motion to suppress.
- The judge found Hedrick guilty on all counts and entered a judgment of conviction.
- Hedrick (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the district court's denial of his suppression motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the warrantless search and seizure of garbage bags from cans located within the curtilage of a residence violate the Fourth Amendment when those cans are situated 18 feet from a public sidewalk and are visible from the street?
Opinions:
Majority - Pell, Senior Circuit Judge
No. The warrantless search and seizure of garbage located within the curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the trash is readily accessible to the public, making an expectation of privacy objectively unreasonable. The court extended the reasoning of California v. Greenwood, which permitted warrantless searches of garbage left at the curb, to garbage located within the curtilage. The court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, and an expectation of privacy is not reasonable if an item is 'knowingly exposed to the public.' Here, even though the cans were within the curtilage, their short distance from the public sidewalk, visibility from the street, and the lack of any barrier like a fence meant Hedrick had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. The court established that the reasonableness of a privacy expectation increases as garbage is moved closer to the house, but in this 'middle ground' case, the accessibility to 'scavengers, snoops, and other members of the public' defeated Hedrick's privacy claim.
Dissenting - Cudahy, Circuit Judge
Yes. The warrantless search of garbage cans located well within the private property of a residence violates the Fourth Amendment because a reasonable expectation of privacy exists in such a location. The dissent argued that the majority misapplied Greenwood, which was predicated on garbage being at the curbside and 'particularly suited for public inspection.' Hedrick's garbage was well within his property, distinguishing it from curbside trash. The dissent found the officers' stealthy, 'tactical' approach—hiding behind bushes—to be strong evidence that the garbage was not, in fact, readily accessible to the public. If it were truly exposed, such secrecy would be unnecessary. The dissent concluded that proximity to the road is essential for finding no expectation of privacy and that this search was an unreasonable intrusion into the curtilage, a zone where privacy expectations are heightened.
Analysis:
This decision is significant because it extends the 'no reasonable expectation of privacy' doctrine for garbage searches from the public curb into the constitutionally protected curtilage of a home. It blurs the bright-line rule that the curtilage receives heightened Fourth Amendment protection by introducing a fact-intensive 'public accessibility' test. The case establishes a sliding scale where the location of garbage on a property determines the reasonableness of privacy expectations, making it more difficult to predict the constitutionality of such searches. This ruling provides law enforcement with greater latitude to conduct warrantless searches of trash cans that are not placed immediately adjacent to a residence, even if they are technically on private property.
