Florida v. Riley
488 U.S. 445 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Warrantless, naked-eye aerial observation of a home's curtilage from a helicopter operating in navigable airspace at an altitude of 400 feet does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- Respondent Riley lived in a mobile home on a five-acre rural property.
- A greenhouse was located 10 to 20 feet behind the mobile home, obscured from ground-level view by trees, shrubs, and the home itself.
- The greenhouse was enclosed on two sides and covered by a roof that had two panels missing, amounting to approximately 10% of the roof area.
- A wire fence surrounded the mobile home and greenhouse, and the property was posted with a 'DO NOT ENTER' sign.
- After receiving an anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown on the property, a sheriff's officer found he could not see the greenhouse's contents from the road.
- The officer then circled twice over Riley's property in a helicopter at an altitude of 400 feet.
- Using his naked eye, the officer was able to see through the openings in the greenhouse roof and sides and identify what he believed to be marijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- Riley was charged with possession of marijuana in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court granted Riley's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search.
- On appeal by the State, the Florida Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) reversed the trial court's suppression order.
- The Court of Appeals then certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court (the state's highest court).
- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstating the suppression order and holding that the surveillance was a search.
- The State of Florida petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's naked-eye observation of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residential backyard, conducted from a helicopter flying at an altitude of 400 feet, constitute a 'search' requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. Police observation of a greenhouse from a helicopter at 400 feet does not constitute a search if the helicopter is operating within navigable airspace. Following the precedent of California v. Ciraolo, what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Since any member of the public could have legally flown a helicopter at 400 feet over Riley's property and observed the greenhouse, Riley did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from such an observation. The police officer was in a public vantage point where he had a right to be. There is no evidence that the helicopter interfered with Riley's normal use of his property, observed any intimate details, or that helicopter flights at this altitude are rare.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
No. While compliance with FAA regulations is not determinative, the police observation in this case did not constitute a search. The proper Fourth Amendment inquiry is not merely whether the officer was in a lawful position, but whether members of the public travel in the public airways at that altitude with sufficient regularity that the expectation of privacy from such observation is unreasonable. In this case, Riley, the defendant, bore the burden of proving that public flights at 400 feet are rare enough to make his expectation of privacy reasonable. Because Riley introduced no such evidence, his expectation of privacy was not one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. Police circling in a helicopter 400 feet above a home to see into its curtilage is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The plurality's reliance on FAA regulations, which are designed for flight safety, misses the core inquiry from Katz v. United States: whether the surveillance violated a reasonable expectation of privacy. The ability to see over a fence using an expensive and sophisticated machine like a helicopter is not analogous to an officer standing on a public road. The rarity of public helicopter surveillance at this altitude means Riley's expectation of privacy was reasonable, and the plurality's holding creates a rule with no meaningful limits on intrusive police surveillance.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. This surveillance constituted a search. The reasonableness of Riley's expectation of privacy depends on the frequency of non-police helicopter flights at 400 feet. Since it is likely that such flights are rare, the burden of proof should be on the prosecution to demonstrate that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. The prosecution did not meet this burden. The case should be remanded to allow the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence on the frequency of such flights.
Analysis:
This case refines the 'aerial surveillance' doctrine established in California v. Ciraolo, extending its principles to helicopters flying at lower altitudes. The fractured nature of the opinions, with a four-justice plurality and a crucial concurrence from Justice O'Connor, created an ambiguous precedent. Justice O'Connor's concurrence is often viewed as the controlling opinion, shifting the focus from mere compliance with FAA regulations to a factual inquiry into whether public air travel at a given altitude is common enough to defeat a reasonable expectation of privacy. This leaves the constitutional floor for aerial surveillance dependent on evidence of flight patterns rather than a bright-line rule, impacting how future cases involving new surveillance technologies are analyzed.
Unlock the full brief for Florida v. Riley