United States v. Karo
468 U.S. 705 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The warrantless monitoring of an electronic beeper's signal within a private residence, a location not open to visual surveillance, violates the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals with a justifiable privacy interest in the residence. However, the installation of such a beeper into a container with the consent of the original owner, before its transfer to a suspect, does not constitute a search or seizure.
Facts:
- DEA Agent Rottinger learned that James Karo, Richard Horton, and William Harley ordered 50 gallons of ether from a government informant, Carl Muehlenweg.
- Muehlenweg informed agents that the ether was intended for use in extracting cocaine from imported clothing.
- With Muehlenweg's consent, DEA agents substituted one of the original cans of ether with their own can containing a hidden electronic beeper.
- On September 20, 1980, Karo picked up the shipment of ether, including the beeper-laden can, from Muehlenweg, unaware of the tracking device.
- Over the following months, the beeper-laden can was moved between several private residences, including those of Karo and Horton, and two separate commercial storage lockers.
- Agents used the beeper signal to determine that the can was inside a specific house in Taos, New Mexico, a fact they could not have confirmed through visual surveillance from outside the property.
- Based in part on the beeper's location information from within the Taos house, agents obtained a warrant to search the residence.
- The subsequent search of the house uncovered cocaine and laboratory equipment.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents Karo, Horton, Harley, Steele, and Roth were indicted in U.S. District Court for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute.
- The District Court granted the respondents' pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized from the Taos residence, ruling the beeper warrant was invalid and the subsequent seizure was tainted by unauthorized monitoring.
- The United States appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's suppression order, holding that a warrant was required to install the beeper and to monitor it within private locations like dwellings and storage lockers.
- The United States petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 warrantless monitoring of an electronic tracking device inside a private residence violate the Fourth Amendment when it reveals information that could not have been obtained through visual surveillance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes, the warrantless monitoring of a beeper inside a private residence violates the Fourth Amendment. Such monitoring is an unreasonable search because private residences are protected by the highest expectation of privacy, and using an electronic device to obtain information from within a home that could not otherwise be obtained from outside is the functional equivalent of a physical intrusion. The installation of the beeper, however, was not a search or seizure because it was done with the consent of the then-owner (the informant) and its mere transfer to the respondents did not infringe on any privacy interest or meaningfully interfere with their possessory interest. Although the monitoring inside the Taos residence was an unconstitutional search, the Court found that the warrant affidavit contained sufficient untainted information, independent of the illegal monitoring, to establish probable cause. Therefore, the evidence was admissible under the independent source doctrine and should not have been suppressed.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes, the monitoring in this specific case violated the Fourth Amendment, but the majority's reasoning is flawed. A homeowner's expectation of privacy should not depend on whether a guest is secretly a government informant. The proper analysis should focus on the defendant's own interest in the container being tracked. A homeowner who allows a guest to bring a closed container into their home surrenders any expectation of privacy in the container's movements, unless it is their container or under their dominion and control. Therefore, a defendant should only be able to challenge beeper monitoring if they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the container's movements and had a sufficient possessory interest in the container itself.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
Yes, monitoring inside a home is a search, but the Court's analysis does not go far enough and its result is incorrect. The initial installation of the beeper constituted a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment because it was a meaningful interference with the respondents' future possessory rights and converted their property to government use. Furthermore, the monitoring of the beeper constituted a 'search' whenever the container was concealed from public view, not just when it was inside a home. The majority also erred by conducting its own de novo review of the warrant affidavit to find an independent source; that issue was not properly before the Court and should have been remanded to the trial court for determination.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and limits the Court's prior holding in United States v. Knotts, which permitted warrantless beeper tracking on public roads. Karo establishes a critical constitutional boundary at the threshold of the home, affirming that technological surveillance cannot be used to circumvent the warrant requirement for searches of a private residence. The decision reinforces the unique sanctity of the home under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court's ultimate application of the independent source doctrine demonstrates that even when a Fourth Amendment violation occurs during an investigation, evidence may still be admissible if probable cause for a warrant was established through other, lawful means.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Karo