Florida V Riley Case Brief Essay

Legal Citation 488 U. S. 445, 109 S. Ct. 693, 102 L. Ed. 2d. 835 (1989) Procedural History The respondent, Michael A. Riley, was charged with self-will of marihuana under Florida law. The trail court granted his motion to suppress the administration of Appeals reversed but certified the case to the Florida unconditional butterfly, which rejected the decisiveness of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trail courts suppression order.The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari for Florida to review the finish of the Supreme Court of Florida. Question Is surveillance of the interior of the partially covered babys room in a residential backyard from a advantage point of a meat cleaver located cd feet above the babys room constitutes as a search, for which a warrant is demand under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, discussion section 12 of Florida Constitution?Facts In this case, the Pasco County Sheriffs office received an unidentified tip that marijuana was being gr own on the respondents property. When the investigating officer discovered that he was not fitted to consume the contents of the green house by the road. All he was able to see was a wire fence surrounding the mobile plate and the greenhouse with a DO NOT ENTER sign post on the property. He then circled twice over the respondents property in a helicopter at the height of 400 feet.With his naked eye, he was able to see through the openings in the roof, since at that place had been two missing panels, and identify what he thought was marijuana developing in the structure. A warrant was later obtained based on these observations, inveterate the search revealed marijuana growing in the greenhouse. Which lead, the respondent, Michael A. Riley, to be charged with possession of marijuana under the Florida law. Decision No.The surveillance of the interior of the partially covered greenhouse in a residential backyard from a vantage point of a helicopter located 400 feet above the green house does not constitutes as a search for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 12 of Florida Constitution because helicopters are not bound by the lower limits of navigable airspace allowed to early(a) aircrafts. Any member of the public could have legally have been wing over Rileys property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Rileys greenhouse.Nothing implied that the helicopter interfered with respondents normal use of the greenhouse or the otherwise parts of the curtilage. Therefore, the police did not violate his Fourth Amendment, right to privacy. sound judgement Reversed Principle of Law The reason the court reserved the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida is because there is nothing in the records that suggest the helicopters fast at 400 feet are sufficiently rare in this dry land to lead substance to respondents claim that he reasonably anticipated that his greenhouse would not be subject t o observation from that altitude.