Court finds aerial surveillance unconstitutional in pot case

[PoliticAverse]

3. That's interesting because there was already a US Supreme Court case on similar aerial surveillance.

California v. Ciraolo (1986)

Held: The Fourth Amendment was not violated by the naked-eye aerial observation of respondent's backyard.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/476/207.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo

The Santa Clara, Cal., police received an anonymous telephone tip that marijuana was growing in respondent's backyard, which was enclosed by two fences and shielded from view at ground level. Officers who were trained in marijuana identification secured a private airplane, flew over respondent's house at an altitude of 1,000 feet, and readily identified marijuana plants growing in the yard. A search warrant was later obtained on the basis of one of the officer's naked-eye observations; a photograph of the surrounding area taken from the airplane was attached as an exhibit. The warrant was executed, and marijuana plants were seized. After the California trial court denied respondent's motion to suppress the evidence of the search, he pleaded guilty to a charge of cultivation of marijuana. The California Court of Appeal reversed on the ground that the warrantless aerial observation of respondent's yard violated the Fourth Amendment.