The right of the people to be free from unreasonable governmental searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment remains one of the most relevant, and intensely contested, protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In the post- 9/11 world, the difficulty of balancing governmental power with individual liberty has become more apparent than ever. It has become the Supreme Court’s duty to accommodate “these intensely clashing forces” by defining what constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure in a particular case, a decision that ultimately hinges on how the Court interprets the values inherent to the Fourth Amendment’s protections. However, if a state’s supreme court deems a Fourth Amendment interpretation to be too restrictive, it is the state’s prerogative to interpret its own constitution to provide greater individual protection than the Fourth Amendment.
In State v. McMurray, the Minnesota Supreme Court had the opportunity to make such a decision. However, by finding that there was “no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage set out for collection on the side of a public street,” the court held that the Minnesota Constitution does not provide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment in the context of warrantless searches of garbage. The majority’s decision ultimately means that police do not need a warrant, or even a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, to search through Minnesotans’ garbage left out publicly for pickup.
This case note first explores the history, development, and construction of constitutional search and seizure law in the United States. It will then discuss the facts of McMurray and examine the reasoning of the majority and dissenting opinions. Next, it analyzes the court’s decision, arguing that the court erred in accepting the reasoning of old precedent, which is laden with disturbing privacy and policy implications. Finally, this note concludes that the decision in State v. McMurray will lead to unconstitutional arrests and invasions of personal autonomy by the State, as it fails to live up to the level of protection guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.