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.
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 compelling rationale and admonition for the Court to remain mindful that continuing technological advancement requires constant review ofhow Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is applied.
After receiving an anonymous tip that the respondent was cultivating marijuana in his garden, police rented a small aircraft and conducted an overflight in order to determine if there was sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant tosearch the property. The two officers that flew over the site were trained inrecognition of marijuana crops via aerial reconnaissance. The photographs ofthe suspect's garden from the air, strongly suggested the presence of a marijuana crop on the property. Based on a sworn affidavit attesting to their expert opinion that there was a presence of marijuana plants, officers obtaineda search warrant. The ensuing search of the premises resulted in seizure of 73 marijuana plants.
The local court found the accused guilty of illegal cultivation of marijuana,but the California Court of Appeals reversed that decision. It found the judgment violated the Fourth Amendment because the flight, which ultimately resulted in gaining evidence that convicted the respondent, illegally invaded therespondent's privacy. The state of California appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court which reversed the decision of the lower, appellate court. The Court was split by divided opinions: five justices held the opinion that the respondent's Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and four justices heldthe dissenting opinions. Neither the majority or dissenting justices questioned whether the respondent illegally cultivated marijuana; rather, at issue was whether the flight over the respondent's house constituted a search and seizure that was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
Unresonable Search and Seizure
In presenting the case to the Supreme Court, the respondent's attorney arguedthat 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 thathe did not want to expose his activities to public scrutiny. He had been subjected to deliberate, unreasonable search and seizure because, the respondent's attorney contended, police officers conducted their fly-over without just cause and with specific intent to collect information about the respondent's activities. In effect, law enforcement had intruded on his privacy.
The arguments presented for the respondent were persuasive and four of the nine justices joined to write an equally compelling dissenting opinion. Writingfor the dissenting opinion, Justice Powell expressed great concerned over the possibility that the sanctity of citizens' privacy would be threatened if the Fourth Amendment was strictly interpreted to define unlawful search and seizure as only pertaining to actual, physical entry onto a person's private property. He pointed out that as technology advanced (even beyond air travel),the possibility for authorities to violate the Fourth Amendment without physical entry increased when "reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeatedby electronic as well as physical intrusion." Citing Katz v. United States (1967), Justice Powell went on to maintain that when a person shows expectations of privacy, it is reasonable to expect to remain protected from public scrutiny. Further, if there were obvious signs that someone wanted privacyin his yard (for example, fencing in and enclosing a home), society should understand and respect those signs as evidence of a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. Justices, therefore, felt that even though the respondent took precautions to show he had expectations of privacy, police jeopardized that privacy not through direct, physical entry, but indirectly by using a product ofmodern technology--an airplane. Powell pointed out that the respondent did not "knowingly" expose his curtilage to public scrutiny and that there really was no equity between accidentally noticing illegal activity and gathering photographs during an official, planned air surveillance. Essentially, dissenting justices maintained that people's rights under the Fourth Amendment shouldbe protected whether those rights were jeopardized from the ground or air.
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 notconducted 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 was a significant distinction between regular police patrol and focused observations on the respondent's home. In his written opinion, Chief Justice Burger reasoned that like any other person who had flown over the respondent's home, police officers saw an obvious violation of the law. The Fourth Amendment could, therefore, not protect the respondent even if the respondent made clear that he wanted to remain "untouchable" in his privacy. As with all public places, air space is open for everybody; police could not neglect the obvious fact that the respondent was breaking the law by illegally cultivating marijuana. That the police officers who conducted the aerial observation had been trained in drug search and seizure was irrelevant because theysimply had seen an illegal act that could have been seen by anybody else during an overflight. Regardless of whether the respondent erected a six-foot fence around his property and another ten-foot fence around the marijuana, the majority opinion agreed with the state of California's argument that, in effect, the respondent had "knowingly" exposed his yard to public view.
Chief Justice Burger agreed that the Fourth Amendment of U.S. Constitution was written to protect people and their privacy. However, citing precedent in Hester v. United States (1924), he pointed out that the Fourth Amendment did not protect "open fields" and that an individual could not expect outdoor privacy except in the area immediately surrounding the home. Further, privacy could not be expected if activities were visible from the outside even ifthe area was enclosed with a high fence in order to restrict ground-level view. There was still no reasonable expectation of privacy from naked eye inspection if taken from open, navigable airspace--an airplane could not be considered a device of advancing technology because the fact of air flight is routine.
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 towhether the Court had failed to enforce Fourth Amendment rights pertaining to personal security, liberty and private property. Dissenting justices strongly believed that open air space should not deprive citizens of either their private interest inside the home or intrude on their activities around privateproperty. Non-routine, warrantless flight over the homes of private citizensbroke the basic principles of the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. In an opinion appending the dissenting justices' arguments, Justice John Marshall Harlan II accurately predicted that developing technology would always require the court to continuously reexamine the possibility that constitutional rights could be subverted through technology. He observed that interpretation of privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment "should not be limited to prescribing only physical intrusions onto private property" because "it is, in the present day, bad physics as well as bad law, for reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeated by electronic as well as physical invasion."
Related Cases
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.
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 compelling rationale and admonition for the Court to remain mindful that continuing technological advancement requires constant review ofhow Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is applied.
After receiving an anonymous tip that the respondent was cultivating marijuana in his garden, police rented a small aircraft and conducted an overflight in order to determine if there was sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant tosearch the property. The two officers that flew over the site were trained inrecognition of marijuana crops via aerial reconnaissance. The photographs ofthe suspect's garden from the air, strongly suggested the presence of a marijuana crop on the property. Based on a sworn affidavit attesting to their expert opinion that there was a presence of marijuana plants, officers obtaineda search warrant. The ensuing search of the premises resulted in seizure of 73 marijuana plants.
The local court found the accused guilty of illegal cultivation of marijuana,but the California Court of Appeals reversed that decision. It found the judgment violated the Fourth Amendment because the flight, which ultimately resulted in gaining evidence that convicted the respondent, illegally invaded therespondent's privacy. The state of California appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court which reversed the decision of the lower, appellate court. The Court was split by divided opinions: five justices held the opinion that the respondent's Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and four justices heldthe dissenting opinions. Neither the majority or dissenting justices questioned whether the respondent illegally cultivated marijuana; rather, at issue was whether the flight over the respondent's house constituted a search and seizure that was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
Unresonable Search and Seizure
In presenting the case to the Supreme Court, the respondent's attorney arguedthat 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 thathe did not want to expose his activities to public scrutiny. He had been subjected to deliberate, unreasonable search and seizure because, the respondent's attorney contended, police officers conducted their fly-over without just cause and with specific intent to collect information about the respondent's activities. In effect, law enforcement had intruded on his privacy.
The arguments presented for the respondent were persuasive and four of the nine justices joined to write an equally compelling dissenting opinion. Writingfor the dissenting opinion, Justice Powell expressed great concerned over the possibility that the sanctity of citizens' privacy would be threatened if the Fourth Amendment was strictly interpreted to define unlawful search and seizure as only pertaining to actual, physical entry onto a person's private property. He pointed out that as technology advanced (even beyond air travel),the possibility for authorities to violate the Fourth Amendment without physical entry increased when "reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeatedby electronic as well as physical intrusion." Citing Katz v. United States (1967), Justice Powell went on to maintain that when a person shows expectations of privacy, it is reasonable to expect to remain protected from public scrutiny. Further, if there were obvious signs that someone wanted privacyin his yard (for example, fencing in and enclosing a home), society should understand and respect those signs as evidence of a "reasonable" expectation of privacy. Justices, therefore, felt that even though the respondent took precautions to show he had expectations of privacy, police jeopardized that privacy not through direct, physical entry, but indirectly by using a product ofmodern technology--an airplane. Powell pointed out that the respondent did not "knowingly" expose his curtilage to public scrutiny and that there really was no equity between accidentally noticing illegal activity and gathering photographs during an official, planned air surveillance. Essentially, dissenting justices maintained that people's rights under the Fourth Amendment shouldbe protected whether those rights were jeopardized from the ground or air.
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 notconducted 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 was a significant distinction between regular police patrol and focused observations on the respondent's home. In his written opinion, Chief Justice Burger reasoned that like any other person who had flown over the respondent's home, police officers saw an obvious violation of the law. The Fourth Amendment could, therefore, not protect the respondent even if the respondent made clear that he wanted to remain "untouchable" in his privacy. As with all public places, air space is open for everybody; police could not neglect the obvious fact that the respondent was breaking the law by illegally cultivating marijuana. That the police officers who conducted the aerial observation had been trained in drug search and seizure was irrelevant because theysimply had seen an illegal act that could have been seen by anybody else during an overflight. Regardless of whether the respondent erected a six-foot fence around his property and another ten-foot fence around the marijuana, the majority opinion agreed with the state of California's argument that, in effect, the respondent had "knowingly" exposed his yard to public view.
Chief Justice Burger agreed that the Fourth Amendment of U.S. Constitution was written to protect people and their privacy. However, citing precedent in Hester v. United States (1924), he pointed out that the Fourth Amendment did not protect "open fields" and that an individual could not expect outdoor privacy except in the area immediately surrounding the home. Further, privacy could not be expected if activities were visible from the outside even ifthe area was enclosed with a high fence in order to restrict ground-level view. There was still no reasonable expectation of privacy from naked eye inspection if taken from open, navigable airspace--an airplane could not be considered a device of advancing technology because the fact of air flight is routine.
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 towhether the Court had failed to enforce Fourth Amendment rights pertaining to personal security, liberty and private property. Dissenting justices strongly believed that open air space should not deprive citizens of either their private interest inside the home or intrude on their activities around privateproperty. Non-routine, warrantless flight over the homes of private citizensbroke the basic principles of the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. In an opinion appending the dissenting justices' arguments, Justice John Marshall Harlan II accurately predicted that developing technology would always require the court to continuously reexamine the possibility that constitutional rights could be subverted through technology. He observed that interpretation of privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment "should not be limited to prescribing only physical intrusions onto private property" because "it is, in the present day, bad physics as well as bad law, for reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeated by electronic as well as physical invasion."
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.
User Comments Add a comment…