- Case Summary

Legal Case Summary

Facts

Danny Kyllo was suspected by the Department of Interior of growing marijuana in his home in Oregon. Agents from the department used a thermal imaging device to scan Kyllo's home. The device detects heat emissions and from the high readings, the agents inferred that Kyllo was using high-intensity heat lamps to grow marijuana. On the basis of this information, they acquired a search warrant and found over 100 marijuana plants in his home. Kyllo was subsequently charged with manufacturing marijuana.

Kyllo filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the thermal imaging constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, and that the agents needed a warrant to carry it out. The district court denied the motion, ruling that Kyllo had no reasonable expectation of privacy for the heat emissions from his house. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the thermal imager did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life, only 'amorphous hot spots' on his roof and exterior wall.

Issues

The case raised an important Fourth Amendment question: does the use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public place to detect relative heat amounts coming from the home constitute a 'search' within the meaning of Fourth Amendment, and thus require a warrant?

This issue was significant because it touched on the growing tension between law enforcement's use of advancing technology and individuals' right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. If the use of thermal-imaging device was deemed a search under Fourth Amendment, then the police would need to obtain a warrant before using such technology.

Analysis

The Supreme Court's ruling in Kyllo v. U.S. has significant implications for Fourth Amendment law, particularly with regard to police use of technology. The decision made clear that the advance of technology could not be allowed to erode the privacy rights of individuals in their homes. This decision is an important landmark in the Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and continues to be cited in cases involving the use of technology in law enforcement.

Decision

In a 5-to-4 decision delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts, ruling that the use of a thermal imaging devise from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer dissented.

References

• United States v. Kyllo, 190 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999).
• Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
• The Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Search and Seizure, 25 Regent U. L. Rev. 181 (2013).

---

Journalist Brief

Kyllo was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. Law enforcement used a thermal imaging device to scan his home from outside and got a search warrant based on the heat readings. Kyllo was subsequently charged with manufacturing marijuana. He argued that the thermal imaging was a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment, thus should've required a warrant. The Supreme Court agreed, reversing lower court decisions, holding that the use of a thermal-imaging device from a public place to monitor heat from a person's home is indeed a 'search' requiring a warrant.

FAQs

What was the main issue in Kyllo v. U.S.?

Answer: Whether use of thermal imaging device from a public place to monitor heat from a home is a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant.

What was the Supreme Court's decision?

Answer: The Supreme Court held in favor of Kyllo, ruling that the use of thermal imaging was a 'search' under Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant.

How does this case affect law enforcement's use of technology?

Answer: This case suggests that as technology advances, law enforcement must still adhere to Fourth Amendment protections, potentially requiring a warrant before using certain types of technology.