# People v. Mayoff

> California Supreme Court · December 31, 1986 · 42 Cal. 3d 1302

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570576

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALLAN NORMAN MAYOFF, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 31, 1986
- **Citations:** 42 Cal. 3d 1302; 233 Cal. Rptr. 2; 729 P.2d 166; 1986 Cal. LEXIS 320
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lucas
- **Judges:** Grodin, Lucas, Bird
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570576

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9570576. Public record. Not legal advice.