In California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), police received information from several sources that Greenwood was selling drugs from his home. As part of their investigation, the officers asked the neighborhood trash collector to pick up and keep separate the garbage bags that were placed for collection on the curb in front of Greenwood's house. On each occasion, the police searched the garbage bags and discovered items indicative of drug use and used the fruits of the searches to obtain warrants to search Greenwood's house. The searches of the house revealed quantities of illegal drugs, and Greenwood was arrested on felony narcotics charges. The charges were dismissed on the ground that the warrantless garbage searches violated the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution. The United States Supreme Court held that the warrantless search and seizure of the opaque plastic garbage bags left for collection outside Greenwood's home did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated such a search would only violate the Fourth Amendment if the persons discarding the garbage manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepted as objectively reasonable. It noted that Greenwood may have had a subjective expectation of privacy in the contents of the garbage bags but concluded he had sufficiently exposed the garbage to the public, rendering his subjective expectation of privacy unreasonable. 486 U.S. at 39-41. Under California v. Greenwood, the location of a person's garbage standing alone does not establish whether the search of the garbage was reasonable; rather, the analysis must include an examination of whether the person manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the trash container and whether that expectation of privacy in the garbage is objectively reasonable. The United States Supreme Court held that police seizure of garbage that had been routinely collected is not subject to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Greenwood, police asked the neighborhood trash collector to pick up Greenwood's trash, which Greenwood had left on the curb in front of his house for routine collection. The trash collector then picked up Greenwood's trash and turned it over to police investigators. The police searched Greenwood's trash bags without a warrant. Based on evidence of narcotics trafficking they discovered in the trash, the police obtained a search warrant, conducted a search of Greenwood's home, and discovered controlled substances in the search. Greenwood was arrested. After Greenwood posted bail, the police continued to receive information that late-night visitors were frequenting Greenwood's home; thus, police again collected his garbage, which contained more evidence of drug use. Based on this evidence, a second search warrant was issued, more drug evidence was found, and Greenwood was again arrested. In sum, a police investigator received information suggesting that the respondent, Greenwood, was involved in drug use and trafficking. The investigator proceeded to conduct a search of Greenwood's trash, and she found items indicative of illegal drug use. After describing in an affidavit the items she found in Greenwood's trash, the investigator obtained a warrant and searched Greenwood's residence. The search yielded large quantities of marijuana and cocaine. A California court dismissed the charges against Greenwood on the grounds that the warrantless search of his trash violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the Fourth Amendment did not provide a blanket prohibition against "the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home." Id. at 37. Specifically, the Greenwood Court held such a search would only violate the Fourth Amendment if "respondents manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in their garbage that society accepts as objectively reasonable." Id. at 39. Finding such an expectation lacking, the Supreme Court noted: 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. 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. Accordingly, having deposited their garbage in an area particularly suited for public inspection and, in a manner of speaking, public consumption, for the express purpose of having strangers take it, respondents could have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the inculpatory items that they discarded. Id. at 40-41.