California v. Ciraolo

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Criminal Procedure

476 U.S. 207 (1986)

Updated July 8, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureAerial SurveillanceCurtilageKatzreasonable expectation of privacyaerial observation

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.