Florida v. Riley

Decision Date23 January 1989
Docket NumberNo. 87-764,87-764
PartiesFLORIDA, Petitioner, v. Michael A. RILEY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

A Florida county sheriff's office received an anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown on respondent's property. When an investigating officer discovered that he could not observe from ground level the contents of a greenhouse on the property—which was enclosed on two sides and obscured from view on the other, open sides by trees, shrubs, and respondent's nearby home—he circled twice over the property in a helicopter at the height of 400 feet and made naked-eye observations through openings in the greenhouse roof and its open sides of what he concluded were marijuana plants. After a search pursuant to a warrant obtained on the basis of these observations revealed marijuana growing in the greenhouse, respondent was charged with possession of that substance under Florida law. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the evidence. Although reversing, the State Court of Appeals certified the case to the State Supreme Court on the question whether the helicopter surveillance from 400 feet constituted a "search" for which a warrant was required under the Fourth Amendment. Answering that question in the affirmative, the court quashed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the trial court's suppression order.

Held: The judgment is reversed.

511 So.2d 282, (Fla.1987) reversed.

Justice WHITE, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice SCALIA, and Justice KENNEDY, concluded that the Fourth Amendment does not require the police traveling in the public airways at an altitude of 400 feet to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye. California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210—which held that a naked-eye police inspection of the backyard of a house from a fixed-wing aircraft at 1,000 feet was not a "search"—is controlling. Thus, respondent could not reasonably have expected that the contents of his greenhouse were protected from public or official inspection from the air, since he left the greenhouse's sides and roof partially open. The fact that the inspection was made from a helicopter is irrelevant, since, as in the case of fixed-wing planes, private and commercial flight by helicopter is routine. Nor, on the facts of this case, does it make a difference for Fourth Amendment purposes that the helicopter was flying below 500 feet, the Federal Aviation Administration's lower limit upon the navigable airspace for fixed-wing craft. Since the FAA permits helicopters to fly below that limit, the helicopter here was not violating the law, and any member of the public or the police could legally have observed respondent's greenhouse from that altitude. Although an aerial inspection of a house's curtilage may not always pass muster under the Fourth Amendment simply because the aircraft is within the navigable airspace specified by law, there is nothing in the record here to suggest that helicopters flying at 400 feet are sufficiently rare that respondent could have reasonably anticipated that his greenhouse would not be observed from that altitude. Moreover, there is no evidence that the helicopter interfered with respondent's normal use of his greenhouse or other parts of the curtilage, that intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage, were observed, or that there was undue noise, wind, dust, or threat of injury. Pp. 449-452.

Justice O'CONNOR concluded that the plurality's approach rests the scope of Fourth Amendment protection too heavily on compliance with FAA regulations, which are intended to promote air safety and not to protect the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Whether respondent had a reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial observation of his curtilage does not depend on whether the helicopter was where it had a right to be, but, rather, on whether it was in the public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity that respondent's expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Because there is reason to believe that there is considerable public use of airspace at altitudes of 400 feet and above, and because respondent introduced no evidence to the contrary before the state courts, it must be concluded that his expectation of privacy here was not reasonable. However, public use of altitudes lower than 400 feet—particularly public observations from helicopters circling over the curtilage of a home—may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy, despite compliance with FAA regulations. Pp. 452-455.

WHITE, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 452. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 456. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 467.

Parker D. Thomson, Miami, Fla., for petitioner.

Marc H. Salton, New Port Richey, Fla., for respondent.

Justice WHITE announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice SCALIA, and Justice KENNEDY join.

On certification to it by a lower state court, the Florida Supreme Court addressed the following question: "Whether surveillance of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residential backyard from the vantage point of a helicopter located 400 feet above the greenhouse constitutes a 'search' for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 12 of the Florida Constitution." 511 So.2d 282 (1987). The court answered the question in the affirmative, and we granted the State's petition for certiorari challenging that conclusion. 484 U.S. 1058, 108 S.Ct. 1011, 98 L.Ed.2d 977 (1988).1

Respondent Riley lived in a mobile home located on five acres of rural property. A greenhouse was located 10 to 20 feet behind the mobile home. Two sides of the greenhouse were enclosed. The other two sides were not enclosed but the contents of the greenhouse were obscured from view from surrounding property by trees, shrubs, and the mobile home. The greenhouse was covered by corrugated roofing panels, some translucent and some opaque. At the time relevant to this case, two of the panels, amounting to approximately 10% of the roof area, were missing. A wire fence surrounded the mobile home and the greenhouse, and the property was posted with a "DO NOT ENTER" sign.

This case originated with an anonymous tip to the Pasco County Sheriff's office that marijuana was being grown on respondent's property. When an investigating officer discovered that he could not see the contents of the greenhouse from the road, he circled twice over respondent's property in a helicopter at the height of 400 feet. With his naked eye, he was able to see through the openings in the roof and one or more of the open sides of the greenhouse and to identify what he thought was marijuana growing in the structure. A war- rant was obtained based on these observations, and the ensuing search revealed marijuana growing in the greenhouse. Respondent was charged with possession of marijuana under Florida law. The trial court granted his motion to suppress; the Florida Court of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court, which quashed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's suppression order.

We agree with the State's submission that our decision in California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986), controls this case. There, acting on a tip, the police inspected the back-yard of a particular house while flying in a fixed-wing aircraft at 1,000 feet. With the naked eye the officers saw what they concluded was marijuana growing in the yard. A search warrant was obtained on the strength of this airborne inspection, and marijuana plants were found. The trial court refused to suppress this evidence, but a state appellate court held that the inspection violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and that the warrant was therefore invalid. We in turn reversed, holding that the inspection was not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. We recognized that the yard was within the curtilage of the house, that a fence shielded the yard from observation from the street, and that the occupant had a subjective expectation of privacy. We held, however, that such an expectation was not reasonable and not one "that society is prepared to honor." Id., at 214, 106 S.Ct., at 1813. Our reasoning was that the home and its curtilage are not necessarily protected from inspection that involves no physical invasion. " 'What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.' " Id., at 213, 106 S.Ct., at 1812, quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). As a general proposition, the police may see what may be seen "from a public vantage point where [they have] a right to be," 476 U.S., at 213, 106 S.Ct., at 1812. Thus the police, like the public, would have been free to inspect the backyard garden from the street if their view had been unobstructed. They were likewise free to inspect the yard from the vantage point of an aircraft flying in the navigable airspace as this plane was. "In an age where private and commercial flight in the public airways is routine, it is unreasonable for respondent to expect that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude...

To continue reading

Request your trial
290 cases
  • Leaders of A Beautiful Struggle v. Balt. Police Dep't, Civil Action No. RDB-20-0929
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • 24 Abril 2020
    ...in "navigable airspace" and "in a physically non-intrusive manner." Id. at 215, 106 S.Ct. 1809.Finally, in Florida v. Riley , 488 U.S. 445, 109 S.Ct. 693, 102 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989) the United States Supreme Court once again upheld the use of aerial surveillance. In Riley , a police officer cir......
  • State v. Kono, SC 19613
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 22 Diciembre 2016
    ...tracking device); Kyllo v. United States , supra, 533 U.S. at 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038 (thermal imaging device); Florida v. Riley , 488 U.S. 445, 109 S.Ct. 693, 102 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989) (helicopters); Dow Chemical Co. v. United States , 476 U.S. 227, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986) (aerial ma......
  • Ulrich v. Corbett, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-14-1025
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 28 Julio 2014
    ...Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978). Moreover, the expectation of privacy must be a "reasonable one." Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 455 (1989) (O'Connor, J., concurring).See also Gale v. Stori, 608 F.Supp. 2d at 635. To state an illegal search claim against Defendants, Plaintiff m......
  • In re Application of the United States for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • 10 Noviembre 2011
    ...expectations of privacy, it cannot constitute a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 449–50, 109 S.Ct. 693, 102 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989); California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986) (“The touchstone of Fourth Amendmen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Unmanned Aircraft Systems ('UAS') – Aka Drones Legal Issues: Where Are We Headed?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 26 Junio 2014
    ...v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986) (aerial photograph of industrial complex from 1200 to 12,000 feet not a prohibited search). 10 488 U.S. 445 11 California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). 12 Id. at 213. 13 476 U.S. 227 (1986). 14 533 U.S. 27 (2001). 15 Id. at 40. 16 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012......
48 books & journal articles
  • Searches of the home
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • 31 Julio 2020
    ...to observation by commercial or private pilots that law enforcement is not barred from making the same observations. Florida v. Riley , 488 U.S. 445 (1989); California v. Ciraolo , 476 U.S. 207 (1986). §4:16.6 Surveillance Tools Courts have upheld indings of probable cause when police inves......
  • Other evidence rules
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2018 Contents
    • 31 Julio 2018
    ...education and attitude. • Judicial notice may also be taken of facts that bear on the objective reasonableness. See Florida v. Riley , 488 U.S. 445 (1989). • The key element will be “expectation of privacy.” • “Standing” as a separate consideration is not a part of the constitutional right ......
  • Other Evidence Rules
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2014 Contents
    • 31 Julio 2014
    ...education and attitude. • Judicial notice may also be taken of facts that bear on the objective reasonableness. See Florida v. Riley , 488 U.S. 445 (1989). • The key element will be “expectation of privacy.” • “Standing” as a separate consideration is not a part of the constitutional right ......
  • Searches of the home
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Fourth amendment searches and seizures
    • 1 Abril 2022
    ...to observation by commercial or private pilots that law enforcement is not barred from making the same observations. Florida v. Riley , 488 U.S. 445 (1989); California v. Ciraolo , 476 U.S. 207 (1986). 2. Case Example §4:17 Sample Fact Scenario The police receive a complaint about your clie......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT