Warren E. Burger

Name: California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court
Author: Warren E. Burger

California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (1986)

Summary

“California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court”, published in 1986, is a work by Warren E. Burger. It explores elements such as curtilage, privacy and respondent.

Quotes from California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (Warren E. Burger)

Warren E. Burger, California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (1986)

“ As Justice Harlan emphasized,
"a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the 'plain view' of outsiders are not 'protected' because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable." ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (1986)

“ Whether respondent therefore manifested a subjective expectation of privacy from all observations of his backyard, or whether instead he manifested merely a hope that no one would observe his unlawful gardening pursuits, is not entirely clear in these circumstances. Respondent appears to challenge the authority of government to observe his activity from any vantage point or place if the viewing is motivated by a law enforcement purpose, and not the result of a casual, accidental observation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (1986)

“ In an age where private and commercial flight in the public airways is routine, it is unreasonable for respondent to expect that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet. The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (1986)

“ The California Court of Appeal, as we noted earlier, accepted the analysis that unlike the casual observation of a private person flying overhead, this flight was focused specifically on a small suburban yard, and was not the result of any routine patrol overflight. Respondent contends he has done all that can reasonably be expected to tell the world he wishes to maintain the privacy of his garden within the curtilage without covering his yard. Such covering, he argues, would defeat its purpose as an outside living area; he asserts he has not "knowingly" exposed himself to aerial views. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (1986)

“ Nor does the mere fact that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of his activities preclude an officer's observations from a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (1986)

“ The protection afforded the curtilage is essentially a protection of families and personal privacy in an area intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically, where privacy expectations are most heightened. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (1986)

“ Respondent argues that because his yard was in the curtilage of his home, no governmental aerial observation is permissible under the Fourth Amendment without a warrant. [1] The history and genesis of the curtilage doctrine are instructive. "At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life.'" Oliver, supra, at 180 (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886) ) . ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Warren E. Burger, California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (1986)

“ Whether this is a rational distinction is hardly relevant, although we find difficulty understanding exactly how respondent's expectations of privacy from aerial observation might differ when two airplanes pass overhead at identical altitudes, simply for different purposes. We are cited to no authority for this novel analysis or the conclusion it begat. The fact that a ground-level observation by police "focused" on a particular place is not different from a "focused" aerial observation under the Fourth Amendment.↑ . ”

Warren E. Burger

Summary

Quotes from California v. Ciraolo — Opinion of the Court (Warren E. Burger)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature