User:Jlofgren/California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207
| California v. Ciraolo | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | ||||||||
| Argued --- December 10, 1985 Decided --- May 19, 1986 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||
| --- |
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that the government does not have to obtain a warrant in order to make naked-eye, aerial observations of a defendant’s backyard, so long as the plane is within FFA airspace.
Facts
[edit]After receiving an anonymous tip that the defendant was growing marijuana in his backyard, the police went to the defendant's home. They were unable to see the marijuana, however, because of two fences that surrounded the backyard: a 6-foot outer fence and a 10-foot inner fence. So without a warrant, the police rented an aircraft and aerially took photographs of the backyard. The plane flew over the defendant’s house at an altitude of 1,000-feet within FAA guidelines. The officers then used this aerial observation to obtain a warrant, which they used to seize the defendant’s marijuana. Importantly, the warrant was issued not upon the photograph itself but upon the eye-witness testimony of the police officers himself, because the photograph did produce a “true representation” of the color of the plants. At trial, the defendant attempted to exclude the evidence based on an illegal “search and seizure” theory. His motion to exclude was denied, and he plead guilty. However, on Appeal the California Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the aerial observation had violated the Fourth Amendment. The government of California then appealed and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.
Issue(s) Before the Court
[edit]- ”[W]hether the Fourth Amendment is violated by aerial observation without a warrant from an altitude of 1,000 feet of
Holding
[edit]- “The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in [unrestricted airspace at an altitude in compliance with FFA regulations] to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.”
Rationale
[edit]In a 5-4 reversal of the lower court’s ruling, the Court concluded that the action of the police was consistent with the reasonable expectation analysis of Katz v. United States.