Other Free Encyclopedias :: Law Library - American Law and Legal Information :: Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1981 to 1988
 

California v. Ciraolo - Significance, Unresonable Search And Seizure, The Liability Of Open Airspace, Impact

Petitioner

State of California

Respondent

Ciraolo

Petitioner's Claim

The respondent's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when law enforcement conducted aerial observation of his home and backyard which, in turn, resulted in his arrest and conviction for cultivating marijuana.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Lawrence K. Sullivan

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Marshall Warren Krause

Justices for the Court

Warren E. Burger (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

19 May 1986

Decision

Although conducted without a search warrant, aerial observation of the respondent's fenced-in backyard by law enforcement did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.

Related Cases

  • Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924).
  • Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
  • United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).
  • Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984).
  • Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986).
  • Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).

Further Readings

  • Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.

Additional Topics

California v. Ciraolo - Significance

The important focus of this case revolved around determining the impact of technological advancement on the ability of law enforcement to conduct search and seizure. The court ultimately decided that open airspace constituted a public place and, therefore, citizens have no Fourth Amendment protection from any overflight made by law enforcement. However, the dissenting opinion nonetheless presented…

California v. Ciraolo - Unresonable Search And Seizure

In presenting the case to the Supreme Court, the respondent's attorney argued that police really did not have a warrant when they flew over his client's home and his curtilage (a small piece of ground next to a house that is usually considered within a person's private domain). The respondent expected to have absolute privacy at his home; his fenced-in home was an obvious sign that he did not want…

California v. Ciraolo - The Liability Of Open Airspace

Although the opinion of dissenting Supreme Court justices made a compelling argument, a slim majority of justices elected to rule that the police had not conducted an unreasonable search and seizure and had not violated the respondent's Fourth Amendment rights. In direct disagreement with their colleagues and the written opinion of the California Court of Appeal, the majority disagreed that there …

California v. Ciraolo - Impact

The decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court's conviction was, by no means, unanimous. Only by one vote, did the majority opinion prevail. The majority opinion held that a citizen's right to privacy in the home and its curtilage did not include ability to engage in unlawful conduct. The opinion of dissenting justices, however, also expressed serious reservations as to whether the Co…

Maryland v. Garrison - Significance, Latitude For Honest Mistakes Made By Officers, Evidence Against The Victim Of Police Error Should Not Be Used [next] [back] Morrison v. Olson - Significance, The Creation Of The Independent Counsel, "how The Act Works In Practice", An "inferior" Officer

User Comments Add a comment…