Florida v. Riley
Citation and Court
488 U.S. 445 (1989) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
A sheriff’s department received a tip that Riley was growing marijuana in a greenhouse on his property. An officer flew over the property in a helicopter at 400 feet and observed through openings in the roof of the greenhouse what appeared to be marijuana plants. Based on this observation, officers obtained a warrant to search the property and found marijuana. Riley argued the warrantless helicopter observation of his curtilage was an unconstitutional search.
Issue
Does the warrantless aerial observation of the curtilage of a home from a helicopter flying at 400 feet constitute a Fourth Amendment search?
Holding
No; observation of the curtilage of a home from a helicopter flying at 400 feet (within navigable airspace and where helicopters are not prohibited from flying) does not constitute a search.
Rule / Doctrine
The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit observation of a home or its curtilage from navigable airspace where the public is free to travel. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft, there is no FAA minimum altitude for helicopters; if a helicopter may lawfully fly at 400 feet, an officer in that helicopter who can see the curtilage has not performed a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Significance
Florida v. Riley extends California v. Ciraolo from fixed-wing aircraft to helicopters and lower altitudes, further eroding the “vertical” expectation of privacy over the curtilage. It shows the limits of the home’s protected zone when observation is made from publicly navigable airspace. Contrast with Kyllo v. United States, where technology allowed observation that would otherwise require physical intrusion.