open fields doctrine

Question 1

case Flordia v Riley

Answer 1

he case involves surveillance by the police of Joe Riley’s greenhouse located in his residential backyard. Acting on an anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown on Riley’s property, a police officer conducted surveillance by circling twice over the property in a helicopter at an altitude of 400 feet. From this vantage point, the officer was able to see through the openings in the roof and the sides of the greenhouse, which were obscured from ground-level view by the property’s fencing, mobile home, and vegetation. Based on what he observed with his naked eye, the officer believed he saw marijuana plants. A search warrant was subsequently obtained, and the search confirmed the presence of marijuana in the greenhouse. Riley was charged under Florida law. The trial court granted his motion to suppress the evidence, but the decision was reversed by the Florida Court of Appeals and later quashed by the Florida Supreme Court, reinstating the trial court’s suppression order.
Issue
Does 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 constitute a “search” for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment?
Holding
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the helicopter surveillance of Riley’s greenhouse did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, did not require a warrant. The Court reversed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.
Reasoning