California v. Ciraolo
Significance, Unresonable Search And Seizure, The Liability Of Open Airspace, Impact
State of California
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
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
Date of Decision
19 May 1986
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.
- 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).
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- California v. Greenwood - Significance, A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy, Should The Fourth Amendment Protect Garbage?, Impact
- California v. Carney - Is It A Car Or A Home?, It Is A Car, It Is A Home
- California v. Ciraolo - Significance
- California v. Ciraolo - Unresonable Search And Seizure
- California v. Ciraolo - The Liability Of Open Airspace
- California v. Ciraolo - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias