State v. Bradley
2025-Ohio-58 (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Warrantless aerial drone surveillance, when conducted from adjacent public or private property without flying directly over the defendant's curtilage, generally does not violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. Evidence discovered through such lawful surveillance is admissible under the independent-source exception, even if a subsequent entry onto the property and arrest are deemed illegal.
Facts:
- The Clark County Sheriff’s Office received information that a stolen trailer was located behind Billy Bradley’s home.
- Detective Ross Eubanks arranged for drone surveillance of Bradley’s property.
- A licensed deputy piloted the drone from a business across the street and over a public park adjacent to Bradley’s property, ensuring the drone did not fly directly over Bradley’s property.
- Drone images did not reveal the trailer but showed a red automobile parked beside a barn behind Bradley’s residence, which matched the description of a reported stolen car.
- A computer check of the license plate confirmed the vehicle was stolen.
- Deputies observed Billy Bradley seated inside the stolen vehicle, moving objects around in its trunk, and removing the license plates.
- Deputies subsequently entered Bradley’s property without a warrant and arrested him.
- After being informed of his constitutional rights, Bradley orally consented to a search of the premises, during which deputies discovered other stolen items, including the trailer, an all-terrain vehicle (ATV), and a forklift.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 12, 2023, Billy Bradley was indicted on four counts of receiving stolen property in the trial court (Common Pleas Court).
- In January 2024, Bradley filed a motion to suppress evidence in the trial court.
- After a suppression hearing, the trial court sustained the motion in part (suppressing evidence regarding an ATV, trailer, and forklift) but overruled it in part (not suppressing evidence regarding an automobile).
- Thereafter, Bradley entered a no contest plea to one count of receiving stolen property; the other counts were dismissed.
- The trial court found Bradley guilty and imposed a prison term of 15 months.
- Bradley (Appellant) appealed his conviction to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeals of Ohio, contending the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence obtained from law enforcement officers’ aerial surveillance of his property; the State of Ohio is the Appellee.
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 warrantless aerial surveillance of a defendant's property, conducted by a drone operating from adjacent public land or private property without flying directly over the defendant's curtilage, constitute an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and if not, can evidence observed by the drone prior to an illegal entry be admitted under the independent-source exception?
Opinions:
Majority - Tucker, J.
No, warrantless aerial drone surveillance conducted from adjacent public land or private property without flying directly over the defendant's curtilage does not constitute an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and therefore, evidence observed by the drone prior to an illegal entry can be admitted under the independent-source exception. The court first declined to address Bradley's argument regarding the reliability of the informant's tip because it was not raised in the trial court and thus waived on appeal. Turning to the warrantless entry, the court agreed with the trial court that the deputies' entry onto Bradley's property and subsequent arrest were problematic and illegal. The State failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances, as there was no competent evidence Bradley was preparing to flee, and deputies could have secured a warrant or waited on the public road. The court also affirmed the trial court's finding that the stolen car was located within the curtilage of Bradley's home, rejecting the State's 'open field' argument. As a result of this illegal entry and arrest, the trial court correctly suppressed the evidence of other stolen property (the ATV, trailer, and forklift) found through Bradley's 'tainted' consent, applying the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine. However, the court found that the evidence concerning the stolen automobile was admissible under the independent-source exception to the exclusionary rule. The drone surveillance itself was constitutional because the drone did not fly over Bradley's property; instead, it was operated from an adjacent public park and a nearby business. Referencing U.S. Supreme Court precedent like Florida v. Riley and California v. Ciraolo, which generally permit aerial surveillance from lawful airspace, the court concluded that the drone's actions were no more intrusive than helicopter surveillance. Since the stolen car was observed and identified by the drone from a lawful vantage point prior to the illegal entry, this information was obtained independently of any constitutional violation. Thus, the evidence regarding the automobile was properly admitted.
Analysis:
This case significantly contributes to the developing jurisprudence on Fourth Amendment implications of drone surveillance, distinguishing lawful observation from unconstitutional search based on the drone's flight path. It reinforces the independent-source exception, illustrating that evidence obtained through lawful means is not automatically suppressed if subsequent police conduct violates the Constitution. The decision provides crucial guidance for law enforcement on the permissible scope of drone use and for criminal defendants challenging such evidence, particularly by clarifying the expectation of privacy in one's curtilage when viewed from adjacent public or private property without direct overflight.
