I wasn't rendering that as my opinion, but rather looking at some of the prior cases cited in this case. Here's one example, there are others. Florida v. Rile

I wasn't rendering that as my opinion, but rather looking at some of the prior cases cited in this case. Here's one example, there are others. Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) "Because there is reason to believe that there is considerable public use of airspace at altitudes of 400 feet and above, and because respondent introduced no evidence to the contrary before the state courts, it must be concluded that his expectation of privacy here was not reasonable. However, public use of altitudes lower than 400 feet -- particularly public observations from helicopters circling over the curtilage of a home -- may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy, despite compliance with FAA regulations." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/