Florida v. Riley: Surveillance and Criminal Justice Analysis

This case study delves into the ethical and legal implications of the Florida v. Riley case, focusing on the contentious issue of aerial surveillance and its compatibility with the Fourth Amendment. The central question revolves around whether law enforcement's warrantless aerial observation of a partially covered private property constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. The analysis draws parallels with similar cases like California v. Ciraolo and contrasts it with the principles established in Katz v. United States, which emphasizes a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. The differing opinions of the justices, particularly concerning the role of the Federal Aviation Administration and the nature of police surveillance technology, are examined. The study concludes that while the warrantless surveillance was upheld in this specific instance due to the reasonable suspicion and the altitude of observation, the case highlights the ongoing tension between law enforcement's investigative powers and individuals' constitutional rights, especially in the context of advancing surveillance technologies. Desklib provides access to this and other solved assignments for students.

Running head: CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Criminal justice
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Ethical problem
In the case of Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) , the main issue brought before
the court was that whether it is fair to get a surveillance footage of interior of an
establishment which is partially covered and whether it requires a warrant to do so. The
United States Supreme Court had held that the police has the authority to make surveillance
footage of a private property from the airspace (Hiltner, 2013).
Search and seizure cases
The Florida Constitution is of the view that the police of any federal law enforcing
agency would require a warrant to photograph or video record the activity of an interior of a
partially covered private property from the airspace. Following the State Constitution, the
Florida Court had held that a search warrant was required by the authority to make a
surveillance footage of a private property from the vantage point of a helicopter (Segal,
1984).
While the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Florida
Supreme Court by arguing that the helicopter surveillance did not constitute a case of search
under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. While laying down such decision, the
Supreme Court had held that not all aerial inspection of private property is allowed for any
random private citizen may have also flown down into the personal space of another,
violating his right to privacy. However, in this context, the court held that any the police had

2CRIMINAL JUSTICE
done no more than observing the partially covered greenhouse of the accused from an altitude
of 400 feet, which any random person flying over the property could have done too.
In California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986), a similar situation had arisen where
the United States Supreme Court had delivered the same judgment as in this case. Here,
Justice Warren Burger had held that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the police
observe certain things without a warrant from a distance which is visible to the naked eyes
and to anyone who passes from there (Koerner, 2014).
In the case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), it was held that a person
has a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ and that it needs to be determined through the
‘Katz test’ as with time and the advancement of technology, there has been numerous cases
filed for the violation of privacy when there was a scope of reasonable expectation of privacy
(Koerner, 2014).
Reason for valid arrest
The judges in this case gave their different opinion on it; Justice O’Conner held that
the duty of the Federal Aviation Administration is to protect the airspace and not to safeguard
the Fourth Amendment Rights, thereby including that the frequency of flight is a necessity
and therefore it is not possible to determine whether such flights and the observations made
from them defeated the reasonable expectation of privacy of the accused. While Justice
Brennan, Marshall and Steven held that the police officers’ surveillance from the airspace
was not done casually which any ordinary citizen would have been able to do. In addition, the

3CRIMINAL JUSTICE
gadgets used by the police offers were very expensive and advanced tools used for special
surveillance purpose and therefore it cannot be stated that the surveillance was done with
naked eyes. However, it could be justified by the fact that the information about Riley
growing marijuana in his backyard was a reason to make the police being suspicious, thereby
carrying out a search operation to get to the truth of the information (Hiltner, 2013).
The Court’s final verdict was that even though the police carried out an unwarranted
surveillance from the airspace, it does not violate the Fourth Amendment of the US
Constitution, for there were valid reasons for carrying out such search operation. It could be
analysed from the decision of this case that when the police authority gets hold of an
information of a suspicious activity, it may go the extent of search and seizure without
warrant, provided that such information of the suspicious activity against the person or a
group of person is proved to be correct.

4CRIMINAL JUSTICE
References
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
Hiltner, P. J. (2013). The drones are coming: Use of unmanned aerial vehicles for police
surveillance and its fourth amendment implications. Wake Forest JL & Pol'y, 3, 397.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Koerner, M. R. (2014). Drones and the fourth amendment: Redefining expectations of
privacy. Duke LJ, 64, 1129.
Segal, J. A. (1984). Predicting Supreme Court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure
cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review, 78(4), 891-900.