california
ciraolo
argued
december
decided
may
santa
clara
police
received
anonymous
telephone
tip
marijuana
growing
respondent
backyard
enclosed
two
fences
shielded
view
ground
level
officers
trained
marijuana
identification
secured
private
airplane
flew
respondent
house
altitude
feet
readily
identified
marijuana
plants
growing
yard
search
warrant
later
obtained
basis
one
officer
observations
photograph
surrounding
area
taken
airplane
attached
exhibit
warrant
executed
marijuana
plants
seized
california
trial
denied
respondent
motion
suppress
evidence
search
pleaded
guilty
charge
cultivation
marijuana
california
appeal
reversed
ground
warrantless
aerial
observation
respondent
yard
violated
fourth
amendment
held
fourth
amendment
violated
aerial
observation
respondent
backyard
pp
touchstone
fourth
amendment
analysis
whether
person
constitutionally
protected
reasonable
expectation
privacy
involves
two
inquiries
whether
individual
manifested
subjective
expectation
privacy
object
challenged
search
whether
society
willing
recognize
expectation
reasonable
katz
pursuing
second
inquiry
test
legitimacy
whether
individual
chooses
conceal
assertedly
private
activity
whether
government
intrusion
infringes
upon
personal
societal
values
protected
fourth
amendment
pp
record
respondent
expectation
privacy
observations
backyard
unreasonable
backyard
crop
within
curtilage
respondent
home
bar
police
observation
mere
fact
individual
taken
measures
restrict
views
activities
preclude
officer
observation
public
vantage
point
right
renders
activities
clearly
visible
police
observations
took
place
within
public
navigable
airspace
physically
nonintrusive
manner
police
able
observe
plants
readily
discernible
naked
eye
marijuana
irrelevant
observation
airplane
directed
identifying
plants
officers
trained
recognize
marijuana
member
public
flying
airspace
cared
glance
seen
everything
officers
observed
fourth
amendment
simply
require
police
traveling
public
airways
feet
obtain
warrant
order
observe
visible
naked
eye
pp
burger
delivered
opinion
white
rehnquist
stevens
joined
powell
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
marshall
blackmun
joined
post
laurence
sullivan
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
steve
white
chief
assistant
attorney
general
eugene
kaster
deputy
attorney
general
marshall
warren
krause
appointment
argued
cause
respondent
brief
pamela
holmes
duncan
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
state
indiana
et
al
linley
pearson
attorney
general
indiana
william
daily
lisa
paunicka
deputy
attorneys
general
charles
graddick
attorney
general
alabama
charles
oberly
attorney
general
delaware
michael
bowers
attorney
general
georgia
neil
hartigan
attorney
general
illinois
robert
stephan
attorney
general
kansas
david
armstrong
attorney
general
kentucky
william
guste
attorney
general
louisiana
james
tierney
attorney
general
maine
francis
bellotti
attorney
general
massachusetts
william
webster
attorney
general
missouri
robert
spire
attorney
nebraska
brian
mckay
attorney
general
nevada
stephen
merrill
attorney
general
new
hampshire
paul
bardacke
attorney
general
new
mexico
anthony
celebrezze
attorney
general
ohio
leroy
zimmerman
attorney
general
pennsylvania
travis
medlock
attorney
general
south
carolina
jeffrey
amestoy
attorney
general
vermont
gerald
baliles
attorney
general
virginia
kenneth
eikenberry
attorney
general
washington
archie
mcclintock
attorney
general
wyoming
americans
effective
law
enforcement
et
al
fred
inbau
wayne
schmidt
james
manak
david
crump
daniel
hales
criminal
justice
legal
foundation
christopher
heard
washington
legal
foundation
daniel
popeo
george
smith
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
american
civil
liberties
union
et
al
douglas
floyd
alan
schlosser
charles
sims
civil
liberties
monitoring
project
amitai
schwartz
national
association
criminal
defense
lawyers
john
kenneth
zwerling
chief
justice
burger
delivered
opinion
granted
certiorari
determine
whether
fourth
amendment
violated
aerial
observation
without
warrant
altitude
feet
backyard
within
curtilage
home
september
santa
clara
police
received
anonymous
telephone
tip
marijuana
growing
respondent
backyard
police
unable
observe
contents
respondent
yard
ground
level
outer
fence
inner
fence
completely
enclosing
yard
later
day
officer
shutz
assigned
investigate
secured
private
plane
flew
respondent
house
altitude
feet
within
navigable
airspace
accompanied
officer
rodriguez
officers
trained
marijuana
identification
overflight
officers
readily
identified
marijuana
plants
feet
feet
height
growing
plot
respondent
yard
photographed
area
standard
camera
september
officer
shutz
obtained
search
warrant
basis
affidavit
describing
anonymous
tip
observations
photograph
depicting
respondent
house
backyard
neighboring
homes
attached
affidavit
exhibit
warrant
executed
next
day
plants
seized
disputed
marijuana
trial
denied
respondent
motion
suppress
evidence
search
respondent
pleaded
guilty
charge
cultivation
marijuana
california
appeal
reversed
however
ground
warrantless
aerial
observation
respondent
yard
led
issuance
warrant
violated
fourth
amendment
cal
app
cal
rptr
held
first
respondent
backyard
marijuana
garden
within
curtilage
home
oliver
emphasized
height
existence
two
fences
constituted
objective
criteria
may
conclude
manifested
reasonable
expectation
privacy
standard
cal
app
cal
examining
particular
method
surveillance
undertaken
found
significant
flyover
result
routine
patrol
conducted
legitimate
law
enforcement
public
safety
objective
undertaken
specific
purpose
observing
particular
enclosure
within
respondent
curtilage
ibid
held
focused
observation
direct
unauthorized
intrusion
sanctity
home
violated
respondent
reasonable
expectation
privacy
cal
omitted
california
denied
state
petition
review
granted
state
petition
certiorari
reverse
state
argues
respondent
knowingly
exposed
backyard
aerial
observation
seen
visible
naked
eye
aircraft
flying
overhead
state
analogizes
mode
observation
knothole
opening
fence
opening
police
may
look
california
appeal
noted
earlier
accepted
analysis
unlike
casual
observation
private
person
flying
overhead
flight
focused
specifically
small
suburban
yard
result
routine
patrol
overflight
respondent
contends
done
reasonably
expected
tell
world
wishes
maintain
privacy
garden
within
curtilage
without
covering
yard
covering
argues
defeat
purpose
outside
living
area
asserts
knowingly
exposed
aerial
views
ii
touchstone
fourth
amendment
analysis
whether
person
constitutionally
protected
reasonable
expectation
privacy
katz
harlan
concurring
katz
posits
inquiry
first
individual
manifested
subjective
expectation
privacy
object
challenged
search
second
society
willing
recognize
expectation
reasonable
see
smith
maryland
clearly
understandably
respondent
met
test
manifesting
subjective
intent
desire
maintain
privacy
unlawful
agricultural
pursuits
however
need
address
issue
state
challenged
finding
california
appeal
respondent
expectation
reasonably
assumed
fence
placed
conceal
marijuana
crop
least
views
far
normal
sidewalk
traffic
concerned
fence
served
purpose
respondent
took
normal
precautions
maintain
privacy
rawlings
kentucky
yet
fence
might
shield
plants
eyes
citizen
policeman
perched
top
truck
bus
whether
respondent
therefore
manifested
subjective
expectation
privacy
observations
backyard
whether
instead
manifested
merely
hope
one
observe
unlawful
gardening
pursuits
entirely
clear
circumstances
respondent
appears
challenge
authority
government
observe
activity
vantage
point
place
viewing
motivated
law
enforcement
purpose
result
casual
accidental
observation
turn
therefore
second
inquiry
katz
whether
expectation
reasonable
pursuing
inquiry
must
keep
mind
test
legitimacy
whether
individual
chooses
conceal
assertedly
private
activity
instead
whether
government
intrusion
infringes
upon
personal
societal
values
protected
fourth
amendment
oliver
supra
respondent
argues
yard
curtilage
home
governmental
aerial
observation
permissible
fourth
amendment
without
warrant
history
genesis
curtilage
doctrine
instructive
common
law
curtilage
area
extends
intimate
activity
associated
sanctity
man
home
privacies
life
oliver
supra
quoting
boyd
see
blackstone
commentaries
protection
afforded
curtilage
essentially
protection
families
personal
privacy
area
intimately
linked
home
physically
psychologically
privacy
expectations
heightened
claimed
area
immediately
adjacent
suburban
home
surrounded
high
double
fences
close
nexus
home
appear
encompass
small
area
within
curtilage
accepting
state
yard
crop
fall
within
curtilage
question
remains
whether
observation
curtilage
police
aircraft
lawfully
operating
altitude
feet
violates
expectation
privacy
reasonable
area
within
curtilage
bar
police
observation
fourth
amendment
protection
home
never
extended
require
law
enforcement
officers
shield
eyes
passing
home
public
thoroughfares
mere
fact
individual
taken
measures
restrict
views
activities
preclude
officer
observations
public
vantage
point
right
renders
activities
clearly
visible
knotts
person
knowingly
exposes
public
even
home
office
subject
fourth
amendment
protection
katz
supra
observations
officers
shutz
rodriguez
case
took
place
within
public
navigable
airspace
see
app
physically
nonintrusive
manner
point
able
observe
plants
readily
discernible
naked
eye
marijuana
observation
aircraft
directed
identifying
plants
officers
trained
recognize
marijuana
irrelevant
observation
precisely
judicial
officer
needs
provide
basis
warrant
member
public
flying
airspace
glanced
seen
everything
officers
observed
record
readily
conclude
respondent
expectation
garden
protected
observation
unreasonable
expectation
society
prepared
honor
dissent
contends
ignores
justice
harlan
warning
concurrence
katz
fourth
amendment
limited
proscribing
physical
intrusions
onto
private
property
post
justice
harlan
observations
future
electronic
developments
potential
electronic
interference
private
communications
see
katz
supra
plainly
aimed
simple
visual
observations
public
place
indeed
since
katz
required
warrants
electronic
surveillance
aimed
intercepting
private
conversations
see
district
justice
harlan
made
crystal
clear
resting
reality
one
enters
telephone
booth
entitled
assume
conversation
intercepted
translate
readily
rule
constitutional
dimensions
one
grows
illicit
drugs
backyard
entitled
assume
unlawful
conduct
observed
passing
aircraft
power
company
repair
mechanic
pole
overlooking
yard
justice
harlan
emphasized
man
home
purposes
place
expects
privacy
objects
activities
statements
exposes
plain
view
outsiders
protected
intention
keep
exhibited
hand
conversations
open
protected
overheard
expectation
privacy
circumstances
unreasonable
katz
supra
reversed
footnotes
california
appeal
recognized
police
right
use
navigable
airspace
made
pointed
distinction
police
aircraft
focusing
particular
home
police
aircraft
engaged
routine
patrol
concluded
officers
focused
observations
violated
respondent
reasonable
expectations
privacy
short
concluded
regular
police
patrol
plane
identifying
respondent
marijuana
lead
different
result
whether
rational
distinction
hardly
relevant
although
find
difficulty
understanding
exactly
respondent
expectations
privacy
aerial
observation
might
differ
two
airplanes
pass
overhead
identical
altitudes
simply
different
purposes
cited
authority
novel
analysis
conclusion
begat
fact
observation
police
focused
particular
place
different
focused
aerial
observation
fourth
amendment
dow
chemical
post
decided
today
hold
use
aerial
mapping
camera
photograph
industrial
manufacturing
complex
navigable
airspace
similarly
require
warrant
fourth
amendment
state
acknowledges
erial
observation
curtilage
may
become
invasive
either
due
physical
intrusiveness
modern
technology
discloses
senses
intimate
associations
objects
activities
otherwise
imperceptible
police
fellow
citizens
brief
petitioner
justice
powell
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
join
dissenting
concurring
katz
justice
harlan
warned
decision
construe
fourth
amendment
proscribing
physical
intrusions
police
onto
private
property
present
day
bad
physics
well
bad
law
reasonable
expectations
privacy
may
defeated
electronic
well
physical
invasion
today
ignores
warning
opinion
departs
significantly
standard
developed
katz
deciding
fourth
amendment
violation
occurred
dissent
opinion
reflects
facts
case
complicated
officer
shutz
investigated
anonymous
report
marijuana
growing
backyard
respondent
home
tall
fence
prevented
shutz
looking
yard
street
yard
directly
behind
home
home
furnished
one
border
fence
shutz
proceeded
without
obtaining
warrant
charter
plane
fly
home
altitude
feet
observing
marijuana
plants
growing
yard
shutz
photographed
respondent
home
yard
well
homes
yards
neighbors
photograph
clearly
shows
enclosed
yard
also
contained
small
swimming
pool
patio
shutz
filed
affidavit
attached
photograph
describing
anonymous
tip
aerial
observation
marijuana
warrant
issued
search
yard
confirmed
shutz
aerial
observations
respondent
arrested
cultivating
marijuana
felony
california
law
respondent
contends
police
intruded
constitutionally
protected
expectation
privacy
conducted
aerial
surveillance
home
photographed
backyard
without
first
obtaining
warrant
rejects
contention
holding
respondent
expectation
privacy
curtilage
home
although
reasonable
intrusions
ground
unreasonable
surveillance
navigable
airspace
view
holding
rests
one
obvious
fact
namely
airspace
generally
open
persons
travel
airplanes
explain
single
fact
deprives
citizens
privacy
interest
outdoor
activities
enclosed
curtilage
ii
fourth
amendment
protects
right
people
secure
persons
houses
papers
effects
unreasonable
searches
seizures
familiar
history
amendment
need
recounted
remember
reflects
choice
society
one
citizens
dwell
reasonable
security
freedom
surveillance
johnson
since
choice
made
framers
constitution
cases
construing
fourth
amendment
relied
part
common
law
instruction
sorts
searches
framers
regarded
reasonable
steagald
repeatedly
refused
freeze
constitutional
law
enforcement
practices
existed
time
fourth
amendment
passage
quoting
payton
new
york
see
district
rather
construed
amendment
light
contemporary
norms
conditions
steagald
supra
quoting
payton
new
york
supra
order
prevent
stealthy
encroachments
citizens
right
free
arbitrary
official
intrusion
boyd
since
landmark
decision
katz
fulfilled
duty
protect
fourth
amendment
rights
asking
police
surveillance
intruded
individual
reasonable
expectation
privacy
decision
katz
held
dissenting
opinions
written
justices
prior
katz
recognized
goldman
murphy
dissenting
olmstead
brandeis
dissenting
standard
defines
fourth
amendment
search
reference
whether
police
physically
invaded
constitutionally
protected
area
provides
real
protection
surveillance
techniques
made
possible
technology
technological
advances
enabled
police
see
people
activities
associations
hear
conversations
without
physical
proximity
moreover
capability
exists
police
conduct
intrusive
surveillance
without
physical
penetration
walls
homes
structures
citizens
may
believe
shelters
privacy
looking
fourth
amendment
protection
broad
unsuspected
governmental
incursions
cherished
privacy
citizens
district
supra
omitted
katz
abandoned
inquiry
whether
police
committed
physical
trespass
katz
announced
standard
occurrence
search
turned
physical
position
police
conducting
surveillance
whether
surveillance
question
invaded
constitutionally
protected
reasonable
expectation
privacy
decisions
following
teaching
katz
illustrate
inquiry
normally
embraces
two
discrete
questions
smith
maryland
first
whether
individual
conduct
exhibited
actual
subjective
expectation
privacy
quoting
katz
harlan
concurring
second
whether
subjective
expectation
one
society
prepared
recognize
reasonable
quoting
katz
supra
harlan
concurring
today
purports
reaffirm
analytical
framework
conclusory
rejection
respondent
expectation
privacy
yard
residence
one
unreasonable
ante
represents
turning
away
principles
guided
fourth
amendment
inquiry
rejection
respondent
fourth
amendment
claim
curiously
odds
purported
reaffirmation
curtilage
doctrine
decision
companion
case
dow
chemical
post
particularly
conclusion
dow
society
prepared
recognize
reasonable
expectations
privacy
curtilage
post
second
question
katz
described
asking
whether
expectation
privacy
legitimate
sense
required
fourth
amendment
oliver
answer
turns
whether
government
intrusion
infringes
upon
personal
societal
values
protected
fourth
amendment
single
consideration
regarded
dispositive
given
weight
factors
intention
framers
fourth
amendment
uses
individual
put
location
societal
understanding
certain
areas
deserve
scrupulous
protection
government
invasion
decisions
made
clear
inquiry
often
must
decided
reference
place
katz
supra
harlan
concurring
see
payton
new
york
home
place
subjective
expectation
privacy
virtually
always
legitimate
ibid
see
karo
steagald
core
fourth
amendment
stands
right
person
retreat
home
free
unreasonable
governmental
intrusion
silverman
case
involves
surveillance
home
stated
oliver
curtilage
considered
part
home
fourth
amendment
purposes
dow
chemical
decided
today
reaffirms
curtilage
doctrine
evolved
protect
much
kind
privacy
covering
interior
structure
post
dow
emphasizes
moreover
society
accepts
reasonable
citizens
expectations
privacy
area
immediately
surrounding
homes
ibid
deciding
whether
area
within
curtilage
courts
defined
curtilage
common
law
reference
factors
determine
whether
individual
reasonably
may
expect
area
immediately
adjacent
home
remain
private
see
van
dyke
williams
care
cert
denied
oliver
supra
lower
federal
courts
agreed
curtilage
area
domestic
use
immediately
surrounding
dwelling
usually
always
fenced
dwelling
laberge
supp
md
see
van
dyke
courts
also
held
whether
area
within
curtilage
must
decided
looking
facts
citing
care
supra
relevant
facts
include
proximity
area
claimed
curtilage
home
nature
uses
area
put
steps
taken
resident
protect
area
observation
people
passing
see
care
supra
see
also
van
dyke
supra
iii
begins
analysis
fourth
amendment
issue
posed
deciding
respondent
expectation
privacy
backyard
agree
conclusion
close
proximity
yard
house
nature
activities
respondent
conducted
taken
steps
shield
activities
view
passersby
implicitly
acknowledges
society
prepared
recognize
expectation
reasonable
respect
surveillance
holding
yard
within
curtilage
area
privacy
interests
afforded
heightened
protection
ante
foregoing
discussion
curtilage
doctrine
demonstrates
respondent
yard
unquestionably
within
curtilage
since
officer
shutz
see
private
family
area
street
certainly
agree
conducted
unreasonable
search
climbed
fence
used
ladder
peer
yard
without
first
securing
warrant
see
van
dyke
supra
see
also
williams
concludes
nevertheless
shutz
use
airplane
product
modern
technology
intrude
visually
respondent
yard
argues
respondent
reasonable
expectation
privacy
aerial
observation
notes
shutz
within
public
navigable
airspace
ante
looked
photographed
respondent
yard
relies
fact
surveillance
accompanied
physical
invasion
curtilage
ibid
reliance
manner
surveillance
directly
contrary
standard
katz
identifies
constitutionally
protected
privacy
right
focusing
interests
individual
free
society
since
katz
consistently
held
presence
absence
physical
trespass
police
constitutionally
irrelevant
question
whether
society
prepared
recognize
asserted
privacy
interest
reasonable
district
holding
therefore
must
rest
solely
fact
members
public
fly
planes
may
look
homes
fly
ante
explain
finds
fact
significant
one
may
assume
believes
citizens
bear
risk
air
travelers
observe
activities
occurring
within
backyards
open
sun
air
risk
appears
hold
nullifies
expectations
privacy
yards
even
purposeful
police
surveillance
air
finds
support
conclusion
knotts
ante
line
reasoning
flawed
first
actual
risk
privacy
commercial
pleasure
aircraft
virtually
nonexistent
travelers
commercial
flights
well
private
planes
used
business
personal
reasons
normally
obtain
fleeting
anonymous
nondiscriminating
glimpse
landscape
buildings
pass
risk
passenger
plane
might
observe
private
activities
might
connect
activities
particular
people
simply
trivial
protect
accident
matter
common
experience
many
people
build
fences
around
residential
areas
build
roofs
backyards
therefore
contrary
suggestion
ante
people
knowingly
expos
residential
yards
public
merely
failing
build
barriers
prevent
aerial
surveillance
reliance
knotts
reveals
second
problem
analysis
activities
surveillance
knotts
took
place
public
streets
private
homes
comings
goings
public
streets
public
matters
constitution
disable
police
observing
every
member
public
see
activity
case
contrast
took
place
within
private
area
immediately
adjacent
home
yet
approves
purposeful
police
surveillance
activity
area
similar
approved
knotts
respect
public
activities
areas
possible
basis
holding
judgment
risk
privacy
posed
remote
possibility
private
airplane
passenger
notice
outdoor
activities
equivalent
risk
official
aerial
surveillance
fails
acknowledge
qualitative
difference
police
surveillance
uses
made
airspace
members
public
use
airspace
travel
business
pleasure
purpose
observing
activities
taking
place
within
residential
yards
police
conducted
overflight
low
altitude
solely
purpose
discovering
evidence
crime
within
private
enclave
constitutionally
forbidden
intrude
ground
level
without
warrant
easy
believe
society
prepared
force
individuals
bear
risk
type
warrantless
police
intrusion
residential
areas
since
respondent
reasonable
expectation
privacy
yard
aerial
surveillance
undertaken
police
purpose
discovering
evidence
crime
constituted
search
within
meaning
fourth
amendment
warrantless
searches
presumptively
unreasonable
though
recognized
limited
exceptions
general
rule
karo
case
presents
exception
indiscriminate
nature
aerial
surveillance
illustrated
officer
shutz
photograph
respondent
home
enclosed
yard
well
neighbors
poses
far
serious
threat
privacy
interests
home
escape
entirely
sort
fourth
amendment
oversight
omitted
therefore
affirm
judgment
california
appeal
ordering
suppression
marijuana
plants
iv
may
believe
case
involving
physical
intrusion
private
property
presents
obnoxious
thing
mildest
least
repulsive
form
boyd
recognized
long
ago
essence
fourth
amendment
violation
breaking
person
doors
rummaging
drawers
rather
invasion
indefeasible
right
personal
security
personal
liberty
private
property
rapidly
advancing
technology
permits
police
conduct
surveillance
home
area
privacy
interests
cherished
society
without
physical
trespass
rule
katz
designed
prevent
silent
unseen
invasions
fourth
amendment
privacy
rights
variety
settings
consistently
afforded
heightened
protection
person
right
left
alone
privacy
house
fails
enforce
right
give
weight
longstanding
presumption
warrantless
intrusions
home
unreasonable
dissent
warrant
authorized
shutz
search
home
attached
garage
well
yard
marijuana
narcotics
paraphernalia
records
relating
marijuana
sales
documents
identifying
occupant
premises
see
payton
new
york
said
four
decades
ago
search
one
home
office
longer
requires
physical
entry
science
brought
forth
far
effective
devices
invasion
person
privacy
direct
obvious
methods
oppression
detested
forbears
inspired
fourth
amendment
whether
search
private
quarters
accomplished
placing
outer
walls
sanctum
detectaphone
transmits
outside
listener
intimate
details
private
conversation
new
methods
photography
penetrate
walls
overcome
distances
privacy
citizen
equally
invaded
government
intimate
personal
matters
laid
bare
view
goldman
murphy
dissenting
since
science
developed
even
sophisticated
means
surveillance
justice
harlan
classic
description
actual
expectation
privacy
entitled
fourth
amendment
protection
expectation
society
recognizes
reasonable
katz
harlan
concurring
since
katz
decisions
also
described
constitutionally
protected
privacy
interests
society
regards
legitimate
using
words
reasonable
legitimate
interchangeably
oliver
rakas
illinois
legitimation
expectations
privacy
law
must
source
outside
fourth
amendment
either
reference
concepts
real
personal
property
law
understandings
recognized
permitted
society
ibid
inquiry
necessarily
focuses
personal
interests
privacy
liberty
recognized
free
society
oxford
english
dictionary
defines
curtilage
small
yard
garth
piece
ground
attached
forming
one
enclosure
regarded
law
area
attached
containing
oxford
english
dictionary
omits
reference
fact
respondent
yard
contained
swimming
pool
patio
sunbathing
private
activities
suppression
hearing
respondent
sought
introduce
evidence
showing
use
yard
domestic
activities
trial
refused
consider
evidence
tr
appeal
course
takeoff
landing
planes
briefly
fly
low
enough
altitudes
afford
fleeting
opportunities
observe
types
activity
curtilages
residents
live
within
strictly
regulated
takeoff
landing
zones
us
know
personal
experience
least
passenger
aircrafts
rarely
ever
opportunity
practical
observation
photographing
unlawful
activity
similar
obtained
officer
shutz
case
analogy
commercial
private
overflights
therefore
wholly
without
merit
precedents
held
expectation
privacy
reasonable
part
individual
assumed
risk
certain
kinds
private
information
turned
police
miller
none
prior
decisions
precedent
today
decision
justice
marshall
observed
duty
sensitive
risks
citizen
forced
assume
free
open
society
smith
maryland
dissenting
opinion
decision
serious
implications
outdoor
family
activities
conducted
curtilage
home
feature
activities
makes
desirable
citizens
living
free
society
namely
fact
occur
open
air
sunlight
relied
justification
permitting
police
conduct
warrantless
surveillance
aerial
surveillance
nearly
intrusive
family
privacy
physical
trespass
curtilage
appear
today
families
expect
free
official
surveillance
retreat
behind
walls
homes
course
right
privacy
home
curtilage
includes
right
engage
unlawful
conduct
fourth
amendment
requires
police
secure
warrant
may
intrude
privacy
search
evidence
suspected
crime
karo