Which of the following is NOT considered government intrusion that implicates the 4th Amendment?

The rationale for identifying aerial surveillance at 1,500 feet as not constituting government intrusion under the 4th Amendment lies in the standard of privacy expectations and legal interpretations surrounding aerial observation. The Supreme Court has established that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for things visible from public airspace, particularly at altitudes where commercial aircraft are typically permitted to fly, such as 1,500 feet.

In this context, aerial surveillance conducted at this altitude is considered to fall under the category of public visibility, meaning that anything that is observable from the sky is not protected by the 4th Amendment because it does not infringe upon a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. The law recognizes that open fields and areas visible from above do not typically require warrants for observation, distinguishing such activities from more intrusive methods that do require police justification and oversight.

The other options, such as the search of abandoned premises, surveillance in open fields, and observation in public areas of business, involve scenarios where legal expectations or interpretations about privacy can dictate a higher level of government intrusion, thus warranting consideration under the 4th Amendment.