THE COURTS HAVE FOUND THAT IN ABANDONING PERSONAL PROPERTY PEOPLE GIVE UP THEIR REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WITH REGARD TO THE DISCARDED ITEMS AND, HAVING DONE SO, CANNOT CLAIM THAT THEIR FOURTH-AMENDMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY A WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND/OR SEIZURE OF THE PROPERTY BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. MANY COURTS HAVE REFERRED TO THE CONCEPT OF 'STANDING' WITH REGARD TO SEARCH OR SEIZURE OF DISCARDED PROPERTY. A PERSON WITH STANDING IS ONE AGAINST WHOM AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH OR SEIZURE IS DIRECTED, ONE WHO HAS A RELATIONSHIP TO THE PLACE SEARCHED OR THE PROPERTY SEIZED SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A FINDING THAT HE OR SHE HAS BEEN VICTIMIZED BY THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE. FORMER POSSESSORS OF ABANDONED PROPERTY ARE STRIPPED OF THEIR STANDING TO OBJECT TO A SEARCH OR SEIZURE OF THE DISCARDED PROPERTY. RUNNING THROUGH ALL FEDERAL DECISIONS ON TRASH SEIZURES ARE THE IDEAS OF ABANDONMENT, RELINQUISHMENT OF PRIVACY, AND (SOMETIMES) FORFEITURE OF STANDING. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO WARRANTLESS SEARCH OR SEIZURE OF TRASH GENERALLY HAVE BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN THE FEDERAL COURTS. MOST COURTS HAVE AGREED THAT PERSONAL PROPERTY DISCARDED IN A COMMON TRASH PILE OR GARBAGE CAN PLACED OUT FOR COLLECTION HAS BEEN ABANDONED AND THAT NO PRIVACY INTEREST REMAINS IN SUCH PROPERTY. THE COURTS ALSO RECOGNIZE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRASH SEIZURES MADE DIRECTLY BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THOSE MADE BY A THIRD PARTY RECRUITED TO OBTAIN TRASH FOR LATER INSPECTION. THE FACTS AND DECISIONS OF PERTINENT CASES ARE SUMMARIZED. SEE NCJ-55999 FOR PART 2. (LKM)