STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS GENERALLY AGREE THAT TRASH AND GARBAGE PLACED OUT FOR COLLECTION, IN AN AREA ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC OR IN A REFUSE CONTAINER USED IN COMMON, DO NOT COME UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. NO PRIVACY INTEREST IS SEEN TO REMAIN IN THE DISCARDED PROPERTY. AN ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT HELD IN PEOPLE V. HUDDLESTON (1976) THAT A DEFENDANT RELINQUISHES CONTROL AND POSSESSION OVER TRASH PLACED AT A CURBSIDE AND ABANDONS IT IN THE SENSE THAT HE DEMONSTRATES AN UNEQUIVOCAL INTENTION TO PART WITH IT FOREVER. THE ALASKA SUPREME COURT IN SMITH V. STATE (1973) CLAIMED THAT PRIVACY EXPECTATIONS CONCERNING TRASH DEPEND ON FOUR FACTORS: (1) WHERE THE TRASH IS LOCATED; (2) WHETHER THE DWELLING IS A MULTIPLE OR SINGLE UNIT; (3)WHO REMOVES THE TRASH; AND (4) WHERE THE SEARCH OF THE TRASH TAKES PLACE. THE COURT UPHELD THE ONPREMISE SEARCH BY POLICE OF A MULTIPLE DWELLING TRASH RECEPTACLE FROM WHICH MUNICIPAL COLLECTIONS WERE MADE. A MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS IN EVEHART V. STATE (1975), HOWEVER, WAS NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT A BAG FOUND IN A TRASH PILE AT THE SIDE OF A HOUSE WAS ABANDONED AS A MATTER OF LAW. THE MOST RESTRICTIVE RULE PERTAINING TO TRASH SEARCHES WAS ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN PEOPLE V. KRIVDA (1971). IN A FOUR TO THREE DECISION, THE COURT HELD THAT PLACEMENT OF TRASH BARRELS AT THE CURBSIDE FOR COLLECTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ABANDONMENT, AND THAT PRIVACY RIGHTS CONTINUE UNTIL THE TRASH LOSES ITS IDENTITY BY BEING COMMINGLED WITH OTHER REFUSE PREVIOUSLY PLACED IN THE TRUCK. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE CALIFORNIA DECISION ON THE GROUND THAT IS WAS BASED ON INDEPENDENT STATE LAW. IN GENERAL, THE STATE COURTS HAVE LITTLE DIFFICULTY WITH SEIZURE OF TRASH PLACED AT THE CURBSIDE OR IN A JOINTLY USED TRASH RECEPTACLE. WARRANTLESS ENTRY BY POLICE TO A CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED AREA SUCH AS A YARD OR GARAGE TO GAIN ACCESS TO TRASH, HOWEVER, MAY TAINT THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE REGARDLESS OF THE PROSSESSOR'S INTENT TO ABANDON. SEE NCJ-55936 FOR PART 1 OF THE ARTICLE. (KJM)