in such container.”). {25} The Greenwood dissent also cited to local ordinances that mandate how garbage is to be disposed of, reasoning that the constitution must protect an expectation of privacy so that the government cannot force an individual to dispose of something she considers private, only to be able to then search through it without a warrant. 486 U.S. at 55-56 (Brennan, J., dissenting). We agree once again. “[AJllowing the State to conduct a warrantless search of refuse set out for collection when an individual is required by law to dispose of his refuse in a specific place, time, and manner is inconsistent with the privacy protections provided by Article II, Section 10.” Granville, 2006-NMCA-098, ¶ 32; see also State v. Boland, 800 P.2d 1112, 1117 (Wash. 1990) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). {26} The manner in which household trash is
holding that while the necessary regulation of garbage must compel a person to reasonably expect that a licensed trash collector will remove his garbage this expectation does not also infer an expectation of governmental intrusion holding no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage placed in trash cans holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage located outside curtilage of home holding that for purposes of federal constitutional law a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to trash discarded outside the home 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