In the case, police in Santa Clara, California flew a private airplane over the property of Dante Ciraolo and took aerial photographs of his backyard after receiving an anonymous tip that he was growing marijuana plants.
Some legal scholars have called this case "the demise of private property" and that it contradicts prior case law such as Katz v. United States stating that, "Distinguishing ground level observation from aerial observation for purposes of interpreting the Fourth Amendment signals a return to the analysis adhered to in pre-Katz cases, namely a reliance upon the physical position of the observer rather than upon the privacy interests of the observed."[1]
Dante Carlo Ciraolo grew marijuana plants in his backyard, shielded from view by two fences. After receiving an anonymous tip, the Santa Clara police sent officers in a private airplane to fly over and take aerial photographs of his property at an altitude of 1,000 feet. Based on an officer's naked eye observation, a search warrant was granted. After the trial court rejected Ciraolo's motion to suppress the evidence (under the exclusionary rule), he pleaded guilty. The California Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the aerial observation was an intrusion into the curtilage of his home and therefore the Fourth Amendment.[2]
Opinion of the Courtedit
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the 5-4 majority, referring to Katz v. United States. He concluded, “The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.”
Dissenting opinionedit
Justice Powell wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun joined. Also citing Katz, Powell argued that the decision ignored that case's two-part test.
In arguing that Ciraolo did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, Powell notes:
the actual risk to privacy from commercial or pleasure aircraft is virtually nonexistent. Travelers on commercial flights, as well as private planes used for business or personal reason, normally obtain at most a fleeting, anonymous, and nondiscriminating glimpse of the landscape and buildings over which they pass. The risk that a passenger on such a plane might observe private activities, and might connect those activities with particular people, is simply too trivial to protect against.
^Falcone, Rosemarie (July 1, 1987). "California v. Ciraolo: The Demise of Private Property" (PDF). Louisiana Law Review. 47 (6): 1378.
^McInnis, Thomas N. (2010). The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment. Lexington Books. p. 268. ISBN9780739129777.
Sources
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
Kelley, Carol Elizabeth (1987). "California v. Ciraolo: Has Backyard Privacy Gone to Pot?". McGeorge Law Review. 18 (3): 1003–1027 – via University of the Pacific.
Hancock, Catherine (2007). "Justice Powell's Garden: The Ciraolo Dissent and Fourth Amendment Protection for Curtilage-Home Privacy". San Diego Law Review. 44: 551–571.
External linksedit
Works related to California v. Ciraolo at Wikisource
Text of California v. Ciraolo, 476U.S. 207 (1986) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOpenJuristOyez (oral argument audio)
January 01, 1970
california, ciraolo, 1986, decision, supreme, court, united, states, which, court, held, that, aerial, observation, person, backyard, police, even, done, without, search, warrant, does, violate, fourth, amendment, constitution, supreme, court, united, statesar. California v Ciraolo 476 U S 207 1986 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that aerial observation of a person s backyard by police even if done without a search warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U S Constitution California v CiraoloSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued December 10 1985Decided May 19 1986Full case nameCalifornia v CiraoloCitations476 U S 207 more 106 S Ct 1809 90 L Ed 2d 210Case historyPriorPleaded guilty in trial court reversed by California Court of AppealHoldingThe Fourth Amendment was not violated by the naked eye aerial observation of respondent s backyard Court membershipChief Justice Warren E Burger Associate Justices William J Brennan Jr Byron WhiteThurgood Marshall Harry BlackmunLewis F Powell Jr William RehnquistJohn P Stevens Sandra Day O ConnorCase opinionsMajorityBurger joined by White Rehnquist Stevens O ConnorDissentPowell joined by Brennan Marshall BlackmunLaws appliedU S Const amend IV In the case police in Santa Clara California flew a private airplane over the property of Dante Ciraolo and took aerial photographs of his backyard after receiving an anonymous tip that he was growing marijuana plants Some legal scholars have called this case the demise of private property and that it contradicts prior case law such as Katz v United States stating that Distinguishing ground level observation from aerial observation for purposes of interpreting the Fourth Amendment signals a return to the analysis adhered to in pre Katz cases namely a reliance upon the physical position of the observer rather than upon the privacy interests of the observed 1 Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the Court 3 Dissenting opinion 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksBackground editDante Carlo Ciraolo grew marijuana plants in his backyard shielded from view by two fences After receiving an anonymous tip the Santa Clara police sent officers in a private airplane to fly over and take aerial photographs of his property at an altitude of 1 000 feet Based on an officer s naked eye observation a search warrant was granted After the trial court rejected Ciraolo s motion to suppress the evidence under the exclusionary rule he pleaded guilty The California Court of Appeal reversed the decision holding that the aerial observation was an intrusion into the curtilage of his home and therefore the Fourth Amendment 2 Opinion of the Court editChief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the 5 4 majority referring to Katz v United States He concluded The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye Dissenting opinion editJustice Powell wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Brennan Marshall and Blackmun joined Also citing Katz Powell argued that the decision ignored that case s two part test In arguing that Ciraolo did have a reasonable expectation of privacy Powell notes the actual risk to privacy from commercial or pleasure aircraft is virtually nonexistent Travelers on commercial flights as well as private planes used for business or personal reason normally obtain at most a fleeting anonymous and nondiscriminating glimpse of the landscape and buildings over which they pass The risk that a passenger on such a plane might observe private activities and might connect those activities with particular people is simply too trivial to protect against See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 476 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court Aerial surveillance doctrine California v Greenwood 486 U S 35 1988 Curtilage Dow Chemical Co v United States 476 U S 227 1986 Florida v Riley 488 U S 445 1989 Kyllo v United States 533 U S 27 2001 Open fields doctrineReferences editReferences Falcone Rosemarie July 1 1987 California v Ciraolo The Demise of Private Property PDF Louisiana Law Review 47 6 1378 McInnis Thomas N 2010 The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment Lexington Books p 268 ISBN 9780739129777 Sources California v Ciraolo 476 U S 207 1986 Kelley Carol Elizabeth 1987 California v Ciraolo Has Backyard Privacy Gone to Pot McGeorge Law Review 18 3 1003 1027 via University of the Pacific Hancock Catherine 2007 Justice Powell s Garden The Ciraolo Dissent and Fourth Amendment Protection for Curtilage Home Privacy San Diego Law Review 44 551 571 External links edit nbsp Works related to California v Ciraolo at Wikisource Text of California v Ciraolo 476 U S 207 1986 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title California v Ciraolo amp oldid 1211236766, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
