What's the most ridiculous argument to ever win in court?

In California vs Ciraolo, the court held that "unwarranted aerial surveillance" did not violate the 4th amendment.

Basically, the police raided Ciraolo's property to seize the mariijuana he was growing there after flying over the property in a private plane to confirm the presence of the plants.

The warrant to search his property, however, was granted based on the "naked eye observations" of the police at ground level. Since there was no way to actually see the plants from the streets, Ciraolo's team argued the warrant was illegal.

The argument California made, and initially won with, was that it wasn't that unlikely a "reasonably curious citizen" might you know... pass over the property in a low flying helicopter or plane. As they do.

California actually won with that case initially, but thankfully the appellate court corrected their foolishness.

/r/AskReddit Thread