Facts
Santa Clara police received an anonymous tip that marijuana was growing in Ciraolo’s backyard. Police could not observe the backyard from ground level and flew a plane over his backyard at 1,000 feet, taking pictures with a 35mm camera. With this, a search warrant was issued and 73 plants were seized.
Procedural History
Ciraolo filed a motion to suppress, which was denied. After this denial, Ciraolo pled guilty. The California Court of Appeals reversed, finding the aerial observation violated the Fourth Amendment.
Issue(s)
Was the aerial observation of Ciraolo’s backyard a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to privacy and thus issuance of the warrant was improper?
Holding(s)
No.
Reasoning/Analysis
The Court found that the test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal private activity, but whether the intrusion infringes upon personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment. That the area is within the curtilage does not bar all police observation. The observations occurred in public navigable airspace in a physically nonintrusive manner which could have been observed by the flying public.
Judgment/Outcome
The Court reversed the judgment of the California Court of Appeals.
No comments:
Post a Comment