Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Police received an anonymous telephone tip that marijuana was growing in D's backyard. The backyard was not viewable from ground level. Officers secured a private plane and flew over D's house at an altitude of 1,000 feet, within navigable airspace. From the overflight, the officers readily identified marijuana plants 8 feet to 10 feet in height growing in a 15-by 25-foot plot in D's yard; they photographed the area with a standard 35mm camera. They obtained a search warrant on the basis of an affidavit describing the anonymous tip and their observations; a photograph depicting respondent's house, the backyard, and neighboring homes was attached to the affidavit as an exhibit. A warrant was executed the next day, and 73 plants were seized. The trial court denied D's motion to suppress the evidence. D pleaded guilty to a charge of cultivation of marijuana. The California Court of Appeal reversed, in that the warrantless aerial observation of D's yard which led to the issuance of the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. D's backyard marijuana garden was within the 'curtilage' of his home. The court found it 'significant' that the flyover 'was not the result of a routine patrol conducted for any other legitimate law enforcement or public safety objective, but was undertaken for the specific purpose of observing this particular enclosure within [respondent's] curtilage.' The California Supreme Court denied the State's (P's) petition for review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co