In Burkholder v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 421, a sheriff's deputy observed what he believed to be a marijuana patch situated in a heavily wooded, mountainous area on property leased by the defendant, while the deputy was flying over the property at an altitude of approximately 1,500 feet. The deputy's view of the patch of vegetation was aided by the use of binoculars. Recognizing that the basic test to be applied in determining the nature of the right of privacy protected under the Fourth Amendment and the California Constitution is whether the defendant has exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy which is objectively reasonable, the court adopted the Dean rationale that a possessor of land devoted to the cultivation of contraband can exhibit no reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial surveillance provided the overflight is at a reasonable and lawful altitude. ( Id., at pp. 425-426.) Nor did the fact that the officer's observations were optically aided compel a contrary conclusion in Burkholder. Although the evidence revealed that the cultivated patch was visible to the naked eye and the evidence reasonably supported an inference that the patch was marijuana, the court held ". . . the determinative factor is whether a reasonable expectation of privacy existed entitling the claimant to be free from clandestine surveillance, whether by natural or artificial means." ( Id., at p. 426.) Burkholder states "'. . . if the purpose of the optically aided view is to permit clandestine police surveillance of that which could be seen from a more obvious vantage point without the optical aid, there is no unconstitutional intrusion; . . .'" ( Burkholder, supra, 96 Cal.App.3d at p. 426.) It appears that the court in Burkholder concluded (and perhaps the courts in other aerial search cases as well) that the marijuana plants were identifiable with the naked eye at a lower altitude, a "more obvious vantage point." (Ibid.)