California v. Ciraolo case brief (476 U.S. 207)

California v. Ciraolo
476 U.S. 207 (1986)

Statement of the Case:
     The State is prosecuting marijuana-grower, Ciraolo, for growing marijuana, but obtained the proof needed for probable cause from flying a plane over his backyard to see the marijuana growing without a search warrant.

FACTS
-Cops received an anonymous tip that D was growing weed in his backyard. D had a 10 foot fence surrounding his yard. 
-Cops flew a plane in public airspace over D's house and photographed his weed. 
-They also signed affidavits about what they saw.  This was used to get a search warrant which allowed them to find 73 marijuana plants.

ISSUE
Whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when he puts up a fence around his yard, but police observe, with the naked eye, that he is committing illegal acts in his backyard from a low-flying airplane.


HOLDING
-A person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he puts up a fence around his yard when police are able to observe, with the naked eye, that he is committing illegal acts in his backyard from a low-flying airplane.


PROCEDURAL HISTORY:-Lower courts ruled that this was an unreasonable search and seizure for the D.
-Judgment reversed for State.

ANALYSIS
-Katz Analysis

1. The D tried to keep his actions private, but it is disputable whether this included from the sky, since his fence did not have a roof, BUT REGARDLESS,
2. “whether the government’s intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the 4^th Amendment.”
   1. Area within the property of the D is not automatically barred from police observation.
   2. Even if he has taken some kind of measure to stop vision of the property, it is not off limits if it is freely visible.
   3. In this case, any member of the public flying in the airspace, who glanced down, could have seen everything the officers observed by the naked eye.
   4. Therefore, his expectation of privacy is unreasonable.

DISSENT

• The majority depends on the idea that airspace is public property, so since you can see the drugs from public property, with the naked eye, that is fair game.
• Curtilage has been considered part of the home itself, and thus should be considered so as to be protected more carefully than other pieces of property.
• The reasonable risk to privacy from a commercial or recreational aircraft is almost nonexistent, and but for the actions of police trying to observe, this observation would not have been made.
• Physical trespass did not occur, but it was still a search without a warrant.

Additional Points:

• No reasonable expectation of privacy attaches to open fields.
• Common law distinguishes curtilage from open fields, but the line between the two is minimal.

Curtilage (land considered part of the home) is defined by:

1. area’s proximity to the home,
2. the existence of an enclosure around the area,
3. the nature of the use to which the area is put,
4. the precautions taken to exclude others from the area. 

Also see: Wikipedia | Curtilage
Link to full case:  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13894501388713609672&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr