BUS 624 Discussion 1 week 2 6

In United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the difference between a business and an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy in the area around their home or business. Hall filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately held that the search and seizure of the shredded documents from the dumpster on Bet-Air's property was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Hall's motion to suppress the evidence. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court likely applied the two-part test established in the Supreme Court case of Katz v. United States to determine whether the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. The test examines whether an individual has a "reasonable expectation of privacy and whether that expectation is one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable"(SCOTUS, 1967). In this case, the court determined that Bet-Air, being a business, had a reduced expectation of privacy compared to an individual. Businesses involved in commercial activities have a lower expectation of privacy regarding items discarded in dumpsters because they are exposed to the public. The court likely concluded that society does not recognize the expectation of privacy in discarded items to the same extent as it does for items within the curtilage of a home (US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - 47 F.3d 1091, 1995). The result might have been different if the dumpster was on private property instead of commercial property. The concept of "curtilage" typically applies more strongly to residential properties, and individuals may have a higher expectation of privacy within their curtilage. If the dumpster were on a residential property or access was more stringently restricted, there might be a stronger argument for a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, it's important to note that the expectation of privacy analysis can still vary based on the specific circumstances and the court's interpretation. If I were an executive at Bet-Air and wanted to assert a stronger expectation of privacy in the dumpster, I would consider taking steps such as clearly marking the dumpster as private property and not for public use or restricting access to the dumpster via a lock or fenced area surrounding the dumpster. In addition, I would consider posting a private property sign at the beginning of the supposedly private drive, clearly delineating public access from private. Lastly, I would consider implementing secure document disposal methods, such as shredding documents in a secure area within the business premises before placing them in the dumpster. Although no actions are beyond litigation and debate, by taking these steps, Bet-Air could create a stronger argument for a reasonable expectation of

privacy in the dumpster's contents, potentially leading to better legal protection in future cases. However, the outcome would still depend on the specific circumstances and the court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. References US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995) (1995, March 16). United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Terrence Hall, Defendant-appellant, 47 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir. 1995) . Justia. Retrieved November 7, 2023, from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate- courts/F3/47/1091/471852/ Links to an external site. SCOTUS (1967, December 18). Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) . Justia. Retrieved November 7, 2023, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/