Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

California v. Ciraolo

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureAerial SurveillanceCurtilageFourth AmendmentKatzreasonable expectation of privacy

Facts

Police received an anonymous tip that marijuana was growing in respondent's backyard. Because a 6-foot outer fence and a 10-foot inner fence prevented ground-level observation, an officer obtained a private plane and flew over the home at 1,000 feet within navigable airspace, accompanied by another trained officer. From the plane, the officers readily identified marijuana plants in a backyard plot and photographed the area with a standard 35mm camera. Based on the tip and the aerial observations, the officer obtained a warrant, and officers later seized 73 marijuana plants from the yard.

Issue

Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit police, without a warrant, from making naked-eye observations of a fenced backyard within the curtilage of a home from an aircraft lawfully flying at 1,000 feet in public navigable airspace?

Rule

Under Katz, even if a person manifests a subjective expectation of privacy, the Fourth Amendment is not violated by naked-eye observation of curtilage from a public vantage point where the observer has a right to be and from which the activity is clearly visible. Thus, police observation from an aircraft lawfully operating in public navigable airspace at 1,000 feet, in a physically nonintrusive manner, of what is readily visible to the naked eye does not constitute a search requiring a warrant.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Police in Tucson receive a tip that Evan Mercer is growing illegal plants behind his house. Because an eight-foot fence blocks the yard from street view, an officer charters a small plane, flies at 1,000 feet in public navigable airspace, and sees the plants with the naked eye in the backyard immediately behind the home.

Did the officer conduct a Fourth Amendment search by making that observation without a warrant?

Explanation. Under the majority's rule, even assuming the backyard is curtilage and the resident showed a subjective desire for privacy, there is no Fourth Amendment search when officers, from an aircraft lawfully operating in public navigable airspace at 1,000 feet, make physically nonintrusive naked-eye observations of what is readily visible. Curtilage status does not itself bar all observation, and the officer's purpose or the existence of a tip does not change the analysis.