TN: Helicopter flyover of MJ patch violated no REP

Really low helicopter flyover [“lower than a cellphone tower”] of defendant’s property seeing a marijuana grow violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. [What if it was a drone and not a helicopter? A pole camera? Private surveillance satellite?] State v. Foreman, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 67 (Feb. 12, 2026):

Sergeant Russell was in public airspace when he flew over the Defendant’s property and identified the contraband. Accordingly, Sergeant Russell did not trespass on a constitutionally protected area when he saw the contraband on the Defendant’s property. See Ciraolo, 476 U.S. at 213-14. The record reflects that Sergeant Russell was flying over the Defendant’s property to look for an unrelated fleeing suspect and not to observe the Defendant or contraband. Additionally, the greenhouse cover that was lying beside the plants effectively removed any visual barrier that might have hidden them from anyone flying over the Defendant’s property. No testimony established the distance of the plants from the Defendant’s home, and no testimony established the plants were in the home’s curtilage. The Defendant’s actions do not establish a subjective intent to hide the plants from aerial view, and the Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the observation of the exposed plants. See Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300; see also Jennette, 706 S.W.2d at 619. Therefore, Sergeant Russell’s helicopter flyover did not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The court properly denied relief on this ground.