California v. Ciraolo Case Brief

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 106 S.Ct. 1809 (1986)

FACTS: Santa Clara police received an anonymous telephone tip that marijuana was growing in Ciraolo’s backyard. The yard was surrounding by a six-foot outer fence and a 10-foot inner fence, completely enclosing the yard. The investigating officer secured a small, fixed-wing plane and flew over the yard at an altitude of 1,000 feet, within legal navigable airspace. Officers in the plane readily identified the eight to ten foot tall marijuana plants growing in the small backyard, and took photos of the plants.

Based on this information, police obtained a search warrant. The next day, 73 marijuana plants were seized from the property.

The state appellate court held that Ciraolo had demonstrated an expectation of privacy by erecting the fences, and that the officers had entered the “curtilage” of the house by flying over and observing the yard. The state court held that since this observation was done with the express intent of surveilling this particular property, that it was a “direct and unauthorized intrusion” on Ciraolo’s privacy.

ISSUE: Was the flyover legal?

HOLDING: Yes

DISCUSSION: The Court discussed the two prongs of the Katz rationale, the subjective and the objective expectations of privacy in a particular situation. The Court determined that while Ciraolo had manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in erecting the fences, it was unreasonable to award an objective expectation of privacy in an outside area. The Court determined that the “Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.”