I focus on the second step of the Katz test. 3 . Plaintiffs assert that in several instances, the City seized personal belongings packed neatly in carts and despite the protests of persons on the scene. Perhaps the City erred in determining that the property was unattended, and accordingly may face some liability, but this does not mean that the City may not seize and immediately dispose of materials it reasonably determines to be unattended. 4 . If the City, in searching unattended personal property on its sidewalks, discovered illegal drugs or other evidence of criminal activity, the owner of the property would not likely succeed in a motion to have the evidence suppressed in a criminal prosecution. Cf. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 40, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 100 L.Ed.2d 30 (1988) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The majority does not really argue that a
holding warrantless searches of garbage bags left on curb for collection invalid under state constitution holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage located outside curtilage of home holding that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic bags placed in or near his open garbage cans and that the police did not violate his fourth amendment rights in seizing and searching the bags where they were able to do so without trespassing on the defendants property holding that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of plastic garbage bags left on or at the side of a public street holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage placed in trash cans