California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Claeys, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 97 Cal.App.4th 55 (Cal. App. 2002):
"Expectations of privacy and property interests govern the analysis of Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims." (United States v. Padilla (1993) 508 U.S. 77, 82, 113 S.Ct. 1936, 123 L.Ed.2d 635 (per curiam).) The trial court's finding that the marijuana plants were in plain view to persons standing on the opposite side of that fence is supported by the record and essentially undisputed on appeal. Consequently, under the facts at issue here, defendant's Fourth Amendment rights stopped at his backyard fence because the plants were readily visible from his neighbor's property and he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in what could be seen from there. Thus, the search did not violate his constitutional rights.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.