This is because the window is viewable by anyone one walking along that street. For example in Katz v. United States, a case ruled by the Supreme Court that there was no search if a person has an expectation of privacy and this expectation should be reasonable. For this case, if a police officer looks through the garbage, this cannot be termed as a search since there is not expectation that the garbage is private. The Congress has already placed statutory restrictions on incidents like when a police officer monitors telephone numbers dialed by individuals. At one time, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Florida v. Riley, where police officers had hovered above a suspect’s house with a helicopter and conducted surveillance. There can be no expectation of privacy in illegal activities. For example where a police officer uses a drug sniffing dog to investigate an illegal activity is not a search.
Under certain circumstances, it is not necessary for warrant for a search or seizure. For this case, the police officer must have a probable cause that makes him believe that the object in question is contraband before the search and seizure. There is search without a warrant on open fields if at all. the person conducting his activity in the open field had no reasonable expectation of privacy. …
There is search without a warrant on open fields if at all. the person conducting his activity in the open field had no reasonable expectation of privacy. For this case the meaning of ‘open field’ doctrine is expanded so that it includes any open space. For example in a case that was ruled by the Supreme Court that there was no search where the police had ignored a "no trespassing" sign when they entered the suspect’s land without a warrant and as they walked through a path to the interior, they discovered he had planted marijuana in his land. The Supreme Court ruled in this case of Oliver v. United States that no search had taken place at the suspect’s land.
At time, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement for example in case the police officer suspects that the accused is likely to destroy evidence. For this case, the police officer is permitted to search and seize the suspect’s property for evidence without a warrant. According to Supreme Court, individuals have reduced expectation of privacy while driving in their vehicles since the vehicles are not repositories of personal effects nor do they serve as a residence place. However, the automobiles are not supposed to be randomly stopped to be searched without a probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminals driving in it. The police officer for this case is allowed to extend the search to any part of the vehicle where they believe weapons or drugs could be hidden. They may also extend their search to the passengers if there is a probable cause to search them if he suspects that they may hiding drugs or any harmful weapon.
If a person has not been arrested and it appears that he has to be searched, then the search