Sandy has been arrested for growing marijuana in her backyard. The evidence was obtained by police helicopter that flew over her property and photographed her garden. Martina's lawyer says this is a violation of her constitutional rights. How has the Court ruled in cases like this?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

a. Incorrect. In the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case California v. Ciraolo, the Court ruled that evidence obtained by the police flying over and photographing a person's property was not a violation of the person's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment, not the Sixth, protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
b. Incorrect. In the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case California v. Ciraolo, the Court ruled that evidence obtained by the police flying over and photographing a person's property was not a violation of the person's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment, not the Sixth, protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
c. Correct. In the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case California v. Ciraolo, the Court ruled that evidence obtained by the police flying over and photographing a person's property was not a violation of the person's Fourth Amendment rights.
d. Incorrect. In the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case California v. Ciraolo, the Court ruled that evidence obtained by the police flying over and photographing a person's property was not a violation of the person's Fourth Amendment rights. A person has not expectation to privacy in areas that can be seen by a helicopter flying over the property.

Sandy Has Been Arrested for Growing Marijuana in Her Backyard