MEMORANDUM

TO: Chief Zipperman

FROM: Jimenez, Samuel

DATE: October 2, 2017

SUBJECT: Drone Surveillance

In investigating the Crime Stoppers tip about possible narcotics activity in the subject house, I

would deploy a drone to obtain footage of the suspect’s property. However, the drone

surveillance would be limited to the backyard and the open areas of the property where narcotics

can be cultivated. No warrant is necessary because case law precedent allows the investigation of

possible criminal activity in plain sight to overhead flights. Deploying a drone to fly over a

suspect’s home to search for any illegal activity is reasonable and is equivalent to a helicopter

flying overhead.

There are two case law precedents that allow the use of a drone to obtain footage of a

suspect’s property; California v. Ciarolo and Florida v. Riley. In California v. Ciarolo, officers

were investigating an anonymous tip about marijuana growing in the suspect’s backyard. The

investigating officers could not see into the property from the ground because fences shielded the

property. A private plane was used to fly over the property at an altitude of 1000 feet. In Florida

v. Riley, police also received an anonymous tip that marijuana was being grown on the suspect’s

property and could not see inside a greenhouse at ground level. A helicopter was used to circle

twice over the property. Both investigations revealed marijuana cultivation. Moreover, in both

cases the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that observation from a plane or helicopter was not a search
requiring a warrant because there was no expectation of privacy as the property was clearly

visible, in plain sight to overhead flights.

Under the fourth amendment, Americans are guaranteed a certain degree of privacy through

the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect against unreasonable searches

and seizures (Schlag 2013). The use of drones by law enforcement officers raises privacy

concerns amongst citizens about reasonable and unreasonable searches. However, the US

Supreme Court has already addressed those issues. Katz v. United States outlined the parameters

of an unreasonable search. The court ruled that a search occurs when a person has an

expectation of privacy in the thing to be searched (Schlag 2013). For example, Kyllo v. United

States set an example of an unreasonable search because thermal imaging to measure heat from

inside a home constitutes an expectation of privacy inside a home. United States v. Jones held

that the government’s physical occupation of private property to obtain information constituted a

search. Lastly, in Florida v. Jardines a K-9 sniffing a suspect’s porch constituted a search

because it was a physical occupation of the home’s curtilage (Begovich 2015).

Flying a drone over the suspect’s property to check if there is marijuana growing on the property

is not a search. The drone would focus only on the backyard and open areas. Moreover, the drone

would not be equipped with thermal technology or other equipment that would result in an

unreasonable intrusion of privacy.

 References

Begovich, M. (2017, September 28). LEPS 530 Public Safety Law – Module 4. Lecture.

Retrieved September 28, 2017, from https://ole.sandiego.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1035731-

dt-content-rid-2455944_1/courses/LEPSL-530-

MASTER/Module_4_Lecture_Transcript.pdf

Schlag, C. (2013). The New Privacy Battle: How the Expanding Use of Drones Continues to

Erode Our Concept of Privacy and Privacy Rights. University of Pittsburg Journal of

Technology Law and Policy, 1-22. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from

https://ole.sandiego.edu/bbcswebdav/courses/LEPSL-530-

MASTER/Expanding_Drones_and_Privacy.pdf.