Kyllo v. United States
533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001)
Rule of Law:
Where the government uses a device that is not in general public use to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
Facts:
- In 1991, Agent William Elliott of the Department of the Interior suspected Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home on Rhododendron Drive in Florence, Oregon.
- Agent Elliott knew that indoor marijuana cultivation typically requires high-intensity lamps that generate a significant amount of heat.
- At 3:20 a.m. on January 16, 1992, Agent Elliott and another officer used an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imager to scan Kyllo's home from their vehicle on a public street.
- The thermal imager detected infrared radiation and created a visual image showing relative heat emissions from the structure.
- The scan showed that the roof over Kyllo's garage and a side wall were substantially warmer than the rest of his home and warmer than neighboring homes in the triplex.
- Based on the thermal imaging data, combined with informants' tips and utility bills, Agent Elliott concluded that Kyllo was using halide lights to grow marijuana inside his house.
Procedural Posture:
- Danny Kyllo was indicted for manufacturing marijuana in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
- Kyllo filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from his home, arguing the warrantless thermal scan was an unconstitutional search, which the District Court denied.
- Kyllo entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the court's suppression ruling.
- On appeal by Kyllo, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing, the District Court reaffirmed its denial of the motion to suppress.
- A panel of the Ninth Circuit, with Kyllo as appellant and the United States as appellee, affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the thermal scan was not a search.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted Kyllo's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home constitute a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. Obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion constitutes a search. The Fourth Amendment's core protection is the right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion within one's own home. While simple visual observation from a public place is not a search, using technology to obtain information from inside the home that is not otherwise publicly available crosses a constitutional line. The Court rejected the government's argument that the device only detected 'off-the-wall' heat emissions, finding this distinction too mechanical and contrary to the principles of Katz v. United States. Furthermore, the court held that in the home, all details are 'intimate details' because the entire home is a constitutionally protected area. The rule must be bright and firm to protect against advancing technology that could erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The use of the thermal imager did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. There is a constitutional distinction between 'through-the-wall' surveillance that gives direct access to private information and 'off-the-wall' observations of phenomena exposed to the public. The thermal imager only passively detected heat emissions from the exterior of the home, which is information in the public domain, akin to odors or snow melting on a roof. The device did not penetrate the walls or reveal any specific, intimate details about the activities inside. The majority's new rule is overly broad, vague in its 'general public use' standard, and wrongly treats the process of drawing inferences from public data as a search. Such monitoring of emissions from a home is a reasonable public service and does not implicate the core privacy interests the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the Fourth Amendment's application to new technologies, extending its protection beyond physical trespass to include technological intrusions. The Court established that the sanctity of the home is protected from sense-enhancing technology that reveals information about the interior that would otherwise be private. By introducing the 'general public use' standard, the Court created a flexible but potentially uncertain test, suggesting that the scope of reasonable privacy expectations may shrink as technology becomes more commonplace. This case sets a crucial precedent for evaluating government surveillance in the digital age, affirming that the Fourth Amendment's protections evolve to counter new methods of intrusion.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Kyllo v. United States (2001)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"