在他们的异议中，大法官瑟古德马歇尔和威廉布伦南赞同宪法第四修正案的意图：保护公民免受不必要的警察入侵。他们认为，在没有司法监督的情况下，允许无证的垃圾搜查将导致任意警察监控。大法官们根据以前关于公共场合携带的包裹和行李的裁决表示反对，认为无论形状或材料如何，垃圾袋仍然是一个袋子。当格林伍德试图隐藏其中的物品时，他期望这些物品将保持私密状态。马歇尔和布伦南还指出，清道夫和窥探者的行为不应影响最高法院的裁决，因为这种行为不是文明的，不应被视为社会的标准。今天，加利福尼亚诉格林伍德仍然为无证警察搜查垃圾提供了依据。该裁决遵循了先前法院裁决的脚步，该裁决试图缩小隐私权。在多数意见中，法院强调了“合理的人”测试的重要性，并重申任何侵犯个人隐私的行为必须被普通社会成员认为是合理的。关于第四修正案的更大问题 – 非法获得的证据是否可以在法庭上使用 – 直到1914年在Weeks v.United建立排除规则之前仍未得到答复。
英国伦敦政治经济学院论文代写：合理的人
In their dissent, Justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan agreed with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution: protecting citizens from unnecessary police intrusions. They believe that allowing undocumented spam searches without judicial supervision would result in arbitrary police surveillance. The judges objected to the previous ruling on parcels and baggage carried in public, arguing that the garbage bag was still a bag regardless of shape or material. When Greenwood tried to hide the items in it, he expected the items to remain private. Marshall and Brennan also pointed out that the actions of scavengers and snoopers should not affect the Supreme Court’s ruling, because such acts are not civilized and should not be regarded as social standards. Today, California v. Greenwood still provides the basis for undocumented police to search for garbage. The ruling follows the footsteps of previous court rulings that attempt to reduce privacy. In the majority opinion, the court emphasized the importance of the “reasonable person” test and reiterated that any violation of personal privacy must be considered reasonable by ordinary members of society. A bigger question about the Fourth Amendment – whether illegally obtained evidence can be used in court – until 1914, when Weeks v. United established exclusion rules, it still did not receive a reply.