Facts
Petitioner's Brief:
The People of the State of California Counsel: John K. Van De Kamp, Attorney General; Steve White, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Criminal Division; Eugene Kaster, Deputy Attorney General |
Respondent's Brief:
Dante Ciraolo Counsel: Marshall Warren Krause; Pamela Holmes Duncan Krause, Baskin, Shell, Grant & Ballentine |
Lower Courts' Decisions
In its opinion, the California Court of Appeal quoted from Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351-352 (1967): “[W]hat a [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” 161 Cal.App.3d at 1088, 208 Cal.Rptr. at 96-97; Pet.App. A14. The court also quoted from Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 80 L.Ed.2d 214, 225, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1742 (1984): “The distinction [between open fields and curtilage] implies that . . . the curtilage . . . warrants the Fourth Amendment protections that attach to the home.” People v. Ciraolo, 161 Cal.App.3d at 1089; 208 Cal.Rptr. at 97; Pet.App. A17.
The lower court reasoned: “Defendant's backyard is within the curtilage; the height and existence of the two fences constitute objective criteria from which we may conclude he manifested a reasonable expectation of privacy by any standard.” 161 Cal.App.3d at 1089; 208 Cal.Rptr. at 97; Pet.App. A17. The court, however, qualified this conclusion: “From the perspective of defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy we deem it significant that the aerial surveillance . . . was not the result of a routine patrol conducted for any other legitimate law enforcement or public safety objective, but was undertaken for the specific purpose of observing this particular enclosure within defendant's curtilage.” 161 Cal.App.3d at 1089; 208 Cal.Rptr. at 97; Pet.App. A18-19. Distinguishing this case from “observation of an open corn field which also contains a cannabis crop”, the court perceived itself as “confronted instead with a direct and unauthorized intrusion into the sanctity of the home.” 161 Cal.App.3d at 1089-1090, 208 Cal.Rptr. at 97-98; Pet. App. A19 [fn. omitted]. |
In the trial court, respondent's motion to suppress the evidence was denied. (J.A. 65.) Respondent was convicted on a cultivation of marijuana charge. His sentence was not “probation” as stated at Petitioner's Brief, p. 5, but 120 days in the county jail, $750 fine, surrender of his rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, participation in a counseling program, and probation. (C.T. 93; R.T. 11-12.) His conviction was appealed to the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, which reversed the conviction and ordered suppression of the fruits of the aerial search of the inner backyard on the basis that it violated the Fourth Amendment. See Appendix A to the Petition. The court below, viewing the specific intention to breach respondent's protected curtilage as a “direct and unauthorized intrusion into the sanctity of the home,” ruled the overflight an unreasonable search in violation of the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment.
|
Kelly Koss & Melanie Matias | Persuasion Theory Spring 2015 | Chicago-Kent College of Law | Professor Godfrey
For educational purposes only.
For educational purposes only.