Florida v. Riley

Background

Respondent Riley lived on rural property with a mobile home and a greenhouse about 10–20 feet behind the home. Two sides and parts of the roof were open or missing so the greenhouse interior could be seen from above through gaps. Police received an anonymous tip about marijuana, circled the property twice in a helicopter about 400 feet up, and, seeing plants through the openings, obtained a warrant. A trial court suppressed the evidence; the Florida Supreme Court held the aerial view was a search.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether looking into a partially open greenhouse from a helicopter at 400 feet was a kind of search requiring a warrant. Relying on a prior case about observations from airplanes, the Court said people cannot reasonably expect privacy for items plainly visible from routine public airspace. Because the helicopter flight was lawful, did not interfere with use of the yard, and there was no record that such flights were unusually rare, the Court held the aerial observation did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Real world impact

The ruling means police may rely on lawful helicopter observations of partially exposed backyards to identify suspected wrongdoing and to obtain search warrants. Homeowners who leave roof or side openings may have diminished privacy from aerial view. The decision drew close votes and does not foreclose different results where low-altitude or intrusive helicopter flights are rare or disruptive.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurrence urged focusing on how common public flights are at the altitude observed. Dissents warned this decision risks broad aerial surveillance and argued the government should prove such flights are routine before denying privacy protections.