 |
 |
|
| |
|
|
California v. Ciraolo
Supreme Court of United States (1986)
Respondent/Defendant: Ciraolo; the defendant was growing marijuana in his backyard which was surrounded by a six feet and a ten feet wall. The officer received a tip and he observed the backyard of the defendant from an airplane flying at the height of 1000 feet. The officer also took pictures with a regular camera and these pictures were represented in the affidavit which was used to obtain the warrant. The court of appeals reversed the defendant's conviction by arguing that the defendant had objective expectation of privacy in his backyard and it was part of his curtilage. The court ruled that the air surveillance violated the defendant's 4th Amednment rights. Now the state appeals.
Issue: 1. Did the defendant have subjective expectation of privacy? 2. Is this expectation reasonable? (Katz Test)
Holding: 1. Yes 2. No
Legal Reasoning: The court ruled that even though the defendant had the high fences around his backyard, the people flying over his backyard or the police officers standing on a truck could still have seen the marijuana plants in the defendant's backyard. The court ruled that when something is visible to the public, even if it is located on the defendant's curtilage, the defendant can not have reasonable expectation of privacy in protecting this item. Ruling of the court of appeals was reversed.