trash--incoming and outgoing

[zddoodah]

are they fair game or are the foragers thieves who are committing a crime?

The former. You placed the items in a trash can, which clearly indicates an intent to abandon ownership, and put them on public property. That said, according to one California city's website (not Los Angeles), this sort of scavenging violates the California Public Resources Code. The website did not identify the particular section of the code, so I'll leave it to you to peruse if you like. Even if that's true, as you acknowledged, the LAPD isn't going to do anything about this.

No so fast. The OP mentioned "bins" and "recycling." That makes it illegal in Los Angeles County. Additionally, many, if not most municipalities within the county have similar ordinances.

https://pw.lacounty.gov/general/faq/index.cfm?203=203&Action=getAnswers&FaqID=IyM9PzcK&Keywords=1

I haven't looked at this in a while, but my recollection is that the Los Angeles County ordinances generally only apply in unincorporated areas in the county and would not apply to the OP who is in the City of Los Angeles.

I worry that these scavengers might find some doc, like a credit card bill or bank statement, and run with it

If you're discarding documents containing sensitive personal information without shredding them, you're being foolish.

IS throwing trash into somebody's semi-empty can in the street illegal

No.

 

[Zigner]

I haven't looked at this in a while, but my recollection is that the Los Angeles County ordinances generally only apply in unincorporated areas in the county and would not apply to the OP who is in the City of Los Angeles.

I agree that county ordinances don't apply to incorporated cities, but I thought I covered that when I said that municipalities within the county likely have similar ordinances.

In any case, here's the ordinance for the City of Los Angeles. Interestingly, it seems to apply to any solid waste container, not just recyclables, and it also seems to prohibit placing items into someone else's cans ("tamper with...the contents thereof"):

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/los_angeles/latest/lamc/0-0-0-163740#JD_66.28.

SEC. 66.28. SOLID WASTE – TAMPERING WITH.
(Title and Section Amended by Ord. No. 182,986, Eff. 5/28/14.)

No person, other than the owner thereof, the owner’s agents or employees, or an officer or employee of this City or any person holding a contract with this City for the collection, management and/or disposal of solid waste, shall tamper with or remove any solid waste, solid waste container or the contents thereof from any location where the same had been placed by the owner thereof or the owner’s agent, whether or not such container conforms to requirements or description set forth in the rules and regulations of the Board.

 

[quincy]

I agree that county ordinances don't apply to incorporated cities, but I thought I covered that when I said that municipalities within the county likely have similar ordinances.

In any case, here's the ordinance for the City of Los Angeles. Interestingly, it seems to apply to any solid waste container, not just recyclables, and it also seems to prohibit placing items into someone else's cans ("tamper with...the contents thereof"):

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/los_angeles/latest/lamc/0-0-0-163740#JD_66.28.

SEC. 66.28. SOLID WASTE – TAMPERING WITH.
(Title and Section Amended by Ord. No. 182,986, Eff. 5/28/14.)

No person, other than the owner thereof, the owner’s agents or employees, or an officer or employee of this City or any person holding a contract with this City for the collection, management and/or disposal of solid waste, shall tamper with or remove any solid waste, solid waste container or the contents thereof from any location where the same had been placed by the owner thereof or the owner’s agent, whether or not such container conforms to requirements or description set forth in the rules and regulations of the Board.

I’m curious: Is that ordinance a way to “control” the homeless population, by any chance (i.e., keep them from eating discarded food)?

 

[Zigner]

I’m curious: Is that ordinance a way to “control” the homeless population, by any chance (i.e., keep them from eating discarded food)?

The ordinance dates back well over 20 years and was put in place to stop people from stealing recyclables out of the recycling bins.

 

[rigaton]

THE LA city ordinance evidently does not jibe with the SUPREME court decision (per quincy) that 'the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home,' unless the Supreme court meant that only legal authorities and not private citizens can rifle through trash bins that are on the street. THE police in la do not have the staff, time, or interest to enforce such a law; at least, I never have seen the LAPD cruise through my neighborhood to interrogate or arrest scavengers.

Regarding the 2nd issue, I really thought that the answer of zddoodah (placing an item in a semi-empty can is NOT illegal) was correct and logical, but the subsequent posting of the LA municipal code gave me pause. I guess that we can conclude that if somebody placing a candy-wrapper in a semi-empty trash barrel that is in the street constitutes 'TAMPERING WITH solid waste...' (LA municpal code), then every vagrant in LA has a choice between being a litterbug, and subject to a fine, or being a 'dumper who has tampered with solid waste,' and perhaps facing a fine or who-knows-what penalty. I have great difficulty imagining that these laws are enforced, but I do not want to get a criminal record in the future and therefore will not stoop to pick up said candy-wrapper or an errant piece of cardboard and place it in somebody's can that is on the street.

 

[Zigner]

THE LA city ordinance evidently does not jibe with the SUPREME court decision (per quincy) that 'the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home,' unless the Supreme court meant that only legal authorities and not private citizens can rifle through trash bins that are on the street. THE police in la do not have the staff, time, or interest to enforce such a law; at least, I never have seen the LAPD cruise through my neighborhood to interrogate or arrest scavengers.

I'm not seeing how one thing has to do with the other.

Regarding the 2nd issue, I really thought that the answer of zddoodah (placing an item in a semi-empty can is NOT illegal) was correct and logical, but the subsequent posting of the LA municipal code gave me pause. I guess that we can conclude that if somebody placing a candy-wrapper in a semi-empty trash barrel that is in the street constitutes 'TAMPERING WITH solid waste...' (LA municpal code), then every vagrant in LA has a choice between being a litterbug, and subject to a fine, or being a 'dumper who has tampered with solid waste,' and perhaps facing a fine or who-knows-what penalty. I have great difficulty imagining that these laws are enforced, but I do not want to get a criminal record in the future and therefore will not stoop to pick up said candy-wrapper or an errant piece of cardboard and place it in somebody's can that is on the street.

It's the tampering with the container itself that gets you.

 

[rigaton]

I thought that the gist of the SUPREME court decision was that trash that is in the street is considered to have been discarded and is fair game for the authorities to go through to collect evidence for a case. DOES the decision give EVERYBODY the right to rummage through a can that is in the street? IN LA, apparently the law does not permit people to go through trash cans that are in the street. I certainly am not an attorney and perhaps my interpretations of the supreme court decision and the LA municipal code are incorrect.

I am more shocked, though, about the law against putting items in other people's cans. LA certainly overregulates the lives of its residents.

 

[zddoodah]

THE LA city ordinance evidently does not jibe with the SUPREME court decision (@per quincy) that 'the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home,' unless the Supreme court meant that only legal authorities and not private citizens can rifle through trash bins that are on the street.

The Greenwood decision has no relevance whatsoever to your questions. That case merely established that, a search by law enforcement of trash in a trash can for collection does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches. Thus, section 66.28 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is not inconsistent with the Greenwood decision.

Regarding the 2nd issue, I really thought that the answer of@ zddoodah (placing an item in a semi-empty can is NOT illegal) was correct and logical, but the subsequent posting of the LA municipal code gave me pause.

I doubt very much that any court would interpret section 66.28 such that "tamper[ing] with . . . [a] solid waste container" includes throwing additional trash into the container.

I thought that the gist of the SUPREME court decision was that trash that is in the street is considered to have been discarded and is fair game for the authorities to go through to collect evidence for a case.

Correct.

DOES the decision give EVERYBODY the right to rummage through a can that is in the street?

No.

 

[rigaton]

I have a clearer understanding now, thanks to zddoodah and others. THE GREENWOOD decision gave legal authorities the right to access trash that is in a can in the street, but that right does NOT extend to private citizens, especially in LA; therefore, the people who drive down my street in LA city and take trash from my can and from the barrels of my neighbors are breaking the law (ordinance 66.28), although THE lapd IS unlikely to take action, even if called by an irate citizen. I, for one, do not like to see the people go through my trash, but I am not willing to file a police report and go through a lot of rigmarole, likely for nothing.

On the 2nd point, CODE 66.28 almost certainly does not prohibit using another's person trash bin when it is in the street; again, even if it did prohibit such an action, trying to get the police involved would be such an ordeal as to be a colossal waste of time and resources for what is, in essence, a petty matter. TO have somebody use my barrel is better in the long run than to have him toss a pile of refuse on my lawn or driveway! OF the 2 issues that I presented herein, this one was the minor one that was more a matter of curiosity than disgust, but some of my neighbors truly are nettled by it.

THANKS! I have learned some interesting points

 

[quincy]

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Greenwood that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in trash left at the curbside, so a warrant is not required to search the contents. There can be other laws that prevent the rummaging through someone’s trash, however, and Los Angeles County apparently has municipalities that have ordinances that do just that. It would not be an invasion of privacy but rather a violation of the ordinance that would get a scavenger cited.

In areas that do not have such ordinances, it is not a violation or an invasion of privacy for someone (law enforcement or private citizen) to check out the contents of another person’s roadside trash.

 

[rigaton]

quincy --not be an invasion of privacy but rather a violation of the ordinance that would get a scavenger cited.

IN LA THE TRASH can diver is not invading my privacy; instead, he is tampering with a solid waste container. THE rummager is not accused of theft, either, even by LA code 66.28.

 

[quincy]

quincy --not be an invasion of privacy but rather a violation of the ordinance that would get a scavenger cited.

IN LA THE TRASH can diver is not invading my privacy; instead, he is tampering with a solid waste container. THE rummager is not accused of theft, though, even by LA code 66.28.

The scavenger can be fined for a violation of the ordinance - but the scavenger is not violating/invading your privacy. It is not theft. Correct.

 

[rigaton]

THE next time that I see those scavengers, I may just tell them that what they are doing is illegal, cite the 66.28 statute and the Greenwood decision, and wait for their reaction. I will just hope that they do not have a gun.

 

[quincy]

THE next time that I see those scavengers, I may just tell them that what they are doing is illegal and wait for their reaction. I will just hope that they do not have a gun.

Or you could ask them what they are searching for - and perhaps leave a roadside package just for them next time (assuming it’s not your personal identifying information).

You are wise to be wary, by the way, although I think most scavengers probably scavenge out of need and do not have the money for guns or ammunition. But I would not rely on my supposition.

 

[rigaton]

I will not confront them! THEY look as if they need the potential money from recyclable items for gas in their truck and food for themselves. Maybe someday they will find a curio that somebody discarded, accidentally or otherwise, and strike it rich. Most importantly, I doubt that they care 1 iota about the Greenwood decision or LA code 66.28 or have the intelligence to understand the nuances of either of them