Acting on a tip that Michael Riley was growing marijuana on his rural Florida property, a sheriff's deputy went to Riley's residence, where a mobile home sat with a greenhouse behind it within the home's curtilage. The area was fenced and surrounded by trees, and the greenhouse's sides were enclosed; however, several roof panels were missing or displaced, leaving openings. From ground level outside the property, the deputy could not see inside the greenhouse. He then conducted aerial surveillance in a helicopter at approximately 400 feet above the property, which is permitted for helicopters under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations so long as the flight does not pose a hazard. From that vantage point, and using only his naked eye, the deputy looked through the roof openings and observed what he believed to be marijuana. The helicopter's presence did not cause undue wind, dust, or other disruption, and the officer did not physically intrude onto the property. Based on the aerial observations, the deputy obtained a search warrant. Execution of the warrant revealed marijuana plants in the greenhouse, and Riley was charged. Riley moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the aerial surveillance was an unconstitutional warrantless search of his curtilage. The Florida Supreme Court agreed and suppressed the evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Does police observation of the curtilage of a home from a helicopter at 400 feet, using only the naked eye and without a warrant, constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment?
Under Katz, a search occurs if the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable. Applying that test to aerial surveillance of curtilage, observation from aircraft in public navigable airspace using the naked eye generally is not a search if (1) the flight occurs at an altitude and in a manner used by the public with sufficient regularity such that the area is exposed to public view, and (2) the surveillance is not unduly intrusive (e.g., causing significant noise, wind, dust, threat of injury, or physical interference). Compliance with FAA regulations is relevant but not dispositive of whether the expectation of privacy is reasonable. (Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion provides the controlling, narrowest grounds under Marks v. United States.)
No. Observing Riley's greenhouse from a helicopter at 400 feet did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search under the circumstances; therefore, the warrant based on those observations was valid and the evidence need not be suppressed.
Plurality (White, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy): Riley did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy against naked-eye aerial observation from 400 feet because any member of the public could legally fly at that altitude. The greenhouse roof was partially open, making its interior visible from above. The helicopter did not interfere with Riley's property or life in a manner that would render the surveillance itself a search. Consistent with Ciraolo (fixed-wing aircraft at 1,000 feet), observation from lawful airspace that reveals what is visible to the naked eye does not intrude upon a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy, even in the curtilage. Controlling concurrence (O'Connor): FAA legality alone is not dispositive; the correct inquiry is whether the vantage point was one the public uses with sufficient regularity that Riley could not reasonably expect privacy from aerial observation at that altitude. Additionally, whether the surveillance was unduly intrusive matters. On the record here, Riley failed to show that helicopter flights at 400 feet were so rare as to make his expectation of privacy reasonable, and the helicopter did not unduly disrupt the property. Thus, no search occurred, but the analysis should turn on public usage and intrusiveness, not simply FAA compliance. Dissents (Brennan, joined by Marshall and Stevens; Blackmun separately): The dissenters argued that a homeowner who has shielded his curtilage from ground view retains a reasonable expectation of privacy from targeted, low-altitude aerial surveillance that is unusual, noisy, and potentially disruptive. They cautioned against converting the mere legality of flight into a blanket license for warrantless surveillance and emphasized that curtilage is afforded special constitutional protection. In their view, the helicopter's low altitude and the artificial vantage used to peer through roof gaps made the surveillance a search.
Florida v. Riley refines the Fourth Amendment analysis for aerial surveillance after Ciraolo and Dow Chemical. Because the decision lacks a single majority opinion, Justice O'Connor's concurrence is the controlling rule: courts should ask whether the public commonly occupies the vantage point and whether the surveillance was unduly intrusive, with FAA regulations as a non-dispositive data point. The case underscores that even curtilage may be exposed to lawful aerial observation, but it preserves meaningful limits tied to common public use and intrusiveness. For students and practitioners, Riley is essential for understanding the Katz framework in nontraditional contexts, how to apply Marks to fractured opinions, and how evolving technologies (e.g., helicopters, drones, sensors) may recalibrate reasonable expectations of privacy.
Florida v. Riley confirms that not every governmental look into a home's curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search. When police observe from an aerial vantage commonly used by the public, at a lawful altitude, with the naked eye, and without undue disruption, the observation will generally fall outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Yet Riley is not a blanket license; it conditions the analysis on real-world usage of the airspace and the intrusiveness of the observation.