California v. Sabo Et Al.

1987-05-19

Headline: Helicopter surveillance and backyard privacy: Court refuses to review lower court’s ruling that police observation from a hovering helicopter violated privacy, leaving evidence suppression in place for the homeowners.

Holding: The Court declined to review the case, leaving in place a state appeals court’s judgment that a deputy’s observation of marijuana from a hovering helicopter (400–500 feet) violated the homeowners’ privacy.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the state appeals court ruling that helicopter surveillance can violate privacy in place.
Police may lose evidence gathered from low-hover helicopter observations under similar facts.
Dissent argued the helicopter was lawfully positioned and review should have been granted.

Topics: police helicopter surveillance, backyard privacy, search and seizure, aerial surveillance

Summary

Background

During a routine helicopter patrol a county deputy saw what he believed were marijuana plants inside a 15-by-20-foot greenhouse in two homeowners’ backyard. The helicopter hovered at about 400 to 500 feet and circled the greenhouse to get a better look. Based on that observation, officers obtained a search warrant and seized the plants. A trial court ruled the marijuana inadmissible, and the California Court of Appeal agreed, holding the helicopter observation violated the homeowners’ Fourth Amendment privacy protections.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a person in their backyard can reasonably expect privacy from observation by a hovering helicopter. The Court of Appeal distinguished an earlier case where officers observed a yard from a fixed-wing plane flying over 1,000 feet. That court said a helicopter at lower altitude is not in the same kind of navigable airspace described in federal law, and it worried helicopters can be a powerful tool for aerial surveillance. The appeals court found the helicopter view invaded a reasonable expectation of privacy, so the evidence was suppressed. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision, leaving the appeals court’s ruling in place.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied review, the state appeals court’s approach stands for this case and may guide similar situations in that jurisdiction. The ruling means police helicopter observations at low altitudes could lead to suppressed evidence when the facts show an intrusive aerial inspection. The outcome is not a definitive national rule, and the legal question could be revisited in another case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by the Chief Justice, disagreed and would have granted review. He said the helicopter was lawfully positioned under federal rules, saw no record of intrusive hovering effects, and thought the appeals court misread the earlier decision.