California v. Ciraolo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| California v. Ciraolo | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||
| Argued December 10, 1985 Decided May 19, 1986 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||
| The Fourth Amendment was not violated by the naked-eye aerial observation of respondent's backyard. | ||||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor |
||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||
| Majority by: Burger Joined by: White, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor Dissent by: Powell Joined by: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun |
||||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||||
| U.S. Const., amend. IV | ||||||||||||
California v. Ciraolo, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that warrantless aerial observation of a man's backyard did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Contents |
[edit] Background
The respondent, Dante Carlo Ciraolo, grew marijuana plants in his backyard, shielded from view by two fences. After receiving an anonymous tip, the Santa Clara police sent officers in a private airplane to fly over and photograph his house at an altitude of 1,000 feet. On the evidence of an officer's naked eye observation, a search warrant was granted. When the trial court rejected Ciraolo's motion to suppress the evidence (under the exclusionary rule), he pleaded guilty. The California Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the aerial observation violated the curtilage of his home and therefore the Fourth Amendment.
[edit] The Court's decision
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the 5-4 majority, referring to Katz v. United States. He concluded, "The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye."
[edit] Dissent
Justice Powell wrote for the minority. Also citing Katz, he argued that the decision ignored that case's two-part test.
