no warrant required for aerial surveillance of suspicious vegetation in a secluded, mountainous area at least 200 feet from trailers that might be residences
How later courts described this case
- no warrant required for aerial surveillance of suspicious vegetation in a secluded, mountainous area at least 200 feet from trailers that might be residences
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LUCAS, J.
I concur in the judgment. As I explained in my dissenting opinion in People v. Cook (1985) 41 Cal.3d 373, 386 [ 221 Cal.Rptr. 499 , 710 P.2d 299 ], aerial surveillance conducted at a reasonable height and in a nonintrusive manner cannot be deemed an “unreasonable” search under the California Constitution. That analysis would apply whether the officers surveyed a backyard and “curtilage,” as in Cook, or mere “open fields,” as here. Police surveillance which is limited to detecting growing marijuana plants simply cannot be deemed “unreasonable” conduct.
As the majority observes, it is unquestionable that thqfederal Constitution would not invalidate a warrantless aerial search, whether of open fields (see United States v. Oliver (1984) 466 U.S. 170, 176-184 [ 80 L.Ed.2d 214, 222-228 , 104 S.Ct. 1735 ]), or of an enclosed backyard (California v. Ciraolo (1986) — U.S. — [ 90 L.Ed.2d 210 , 106 S.Ct. 1809 ]). I would reach the same result under the state Constitution. Indeed, were this case governed by Proposition 8, which added section 28, subdivision (d), to the state Constitution, we would be compelled to reach that result (at least insofar as application of the state exclusionary rule is concerned). Only because *1322 this case and Cook arose prior to the adoption of Proposition 8 must we consider whether the searches conducted in those cases violated state constitutional requirements.