Pennsylvania
How California v. Ciraolo applies in Pennsylvania: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.
In Pennsylvania, the principles established in California v. Ciraolo regarding the expectation of privacy in curtilage have been acknowledged, particularly concerning aerial surveillance of private property. The state tends to focus on the reasonable expectation of privacy standard, which aligns with federal approaches but may expand in certain contexts.
The Pennsylvania courts uphold a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas immediately surrounding a home (curtilage), but may permit aerial surveillance if the area is visible from public airspace without additional intrusion.
The court held that the use of aerial surveillance constituted a search under the Pennsylvania Constitution and required a warrant when it intrudes upon a reasonable expectation of privacy.
This case reaffirmed that open fields do not typically have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but areas close to the home do warrant heightened protection.
The court indicated that warrantless searches that utilize technologies not available to the public can infringe upon a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Pennsylvania generally adopts a standard similar to the federal reasonable expectation of privacy test established in Katz, but it has been more protective in specific contexts involving private property rights. Pennsylvania courts may provide broader protections under the Pennsylvania Constitution compared to the Fourth Amendment.
Expect questions on how Pennsylvania's privacy rights may diverge from federal protections, particularly regarding aerial surveillance and curtilage.