Three cases of warrantless aerial surveillance upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as not constituting intrusion into a reasonable expectation of privacy are outlined. Two cases involved observation of marijuana cultivation by the naked eye in one instance at 1,000 feet from private airplane and in the other at 400 feet from a helicopter. A third involved observation of a factory with a standard, floor-mounted precision aerial mapping camera. The Court warned against assuming that compliance with FAA regulations would automatically satisfy fourth amendment requirements. The factors it considered significant were type of property, frequency of other aircraft flights, steps taken to conceal property and activity from aerial observation, location of observer, sensory enhancement devices, and nature and degree of intrusion. References.