NACA Animal Control Officers Practice Test

What was the ruling in California vs. Ciraolo (1986)?

1. Individuals have full privacy rights above their properties

2. Property is not protected under the Fourth Amendment when observed from navigable airspace

3. All aerial observations are considered searches

4. Law enforcement needs a warrant for aerial surveillance

The correct answer is: Property is not protected under the Fourth Amendment when observed from navigable airspace

The ruling in California vs. Ciraolo (1986) established that property is not considered protected under the Fourth Amendment when it can be observed from navigable airspace. The Supreme Court found that the police's observation of a backyard from an airplane did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment because the area was visible from the air, which is generally accessible to the public. This ruling emphasized that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for activities that can be observed from a lawful vantage point, such as above in navigable airspace. Consequently, the Court determined that the police did not need a warrant to conduct aerial surveillance in this context. This case is significant in shaping how privacy rights are understood in relation to aerial observation and has implications for law enforcement practices.