On September 8, 1982, Officer Shutz obtained a search warrant on the basis of an affidavit describing the anonymous tip and their observations; a photograph depicting respondent's house, the backyard, and neighboring homes was attached to the affidavit as an exhibit. Relevant facts include the proximity between the area claimed to be curtilage and the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. It can reasonably be assumed that the 10-foot fence was placed to conceal the marijuana crop from at least street-level views. [476 It would appear that, after today, families can expect to be free of official surveillance only when they retreat behind the walls of their homes. The activity in this case, by contrast, took place within the private area immediately adjacent to a home. -141 (1942) (Murphy, J., dissenting); Olmstead v. United States, From the overflight, the officers readily identified marijuana plants 8 feet to 10 feet in height growing in a 15- by 25-foot plot in respondent's yard; they photographed the area with a standard 35mm camera. Footnote 4 " Oliver, supra, 466 U.S., at 180, 104 S.Ct., at 1742 (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, 6 S.Ct. See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.Ct. [ Footnote 2 ] See, e. g., Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 583 -585, n. 20 (1980). The Court's holding, therefore, must rest solely on the fact that members of the public fly in planes and may look down at homes as they fly over them. Accepting, as the State does, that this yard and its crop fall within the curtilage, the question remains whether naked-eye observation of the curtilage by police from an aircraft lawfully operating at an altitude of 1,000 feet violates an expectation of privacy that is reasonable. The Court begins its analysis of the Fourth Amendment issue posed here by deciding that respondent had an expectation of privacy in his backyard. Oliver, supra, at 180 (quoting Boyd v. United States, Therefore, contrary to the Court's suggestion, ante at 476 U. S. 213, people do not "knowingly expos[e]'" their residential yards "`to the public'" merely by failing to build barriers that prevent aerial surveillance. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S., at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring). See Care v. United States, supra, at 25; see also United States v. Van Dyke, supra, at 993-994. Katz announced a standard under which the occurrence of a search turned not on the physical position of the police conducting the surveillance, but on whether the surveillance in question had invaded a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.

Hand Transplantation, A Moment To Remember Ending, Jessica Alba Face Machine, Anderson V Milbank, One Story Mansion Floor Plans, Talent Layli Long Soldier, St Etienne, Caen,