NCJ Number
191373
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 70 Issue: 10 Dated: October 2001 Pages: 25-32
Date Published
October 2001
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Kyllo v. United States (2001) and its restrictions on police use of thermal-imaging devices; the article also explores major themes developed by Federal courts when assessing the impact of new police technologies on traditional Fourth Amendment search law.
Abstract
A member of the Oregon National Guard scanned Kyllo's residence with a thermal imager after an agent of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management developed information that Kyllo might be growing marijuana inside his home. No search warrant authorizing the scan was sought. The scan revealed what investigators believed to be abnormally high amounts of heat coming from Kyllo's home. Investigators concluded that the facts of the case gave them probable cause to believe Kyllo was growing marijuana in his house. Investigators applied for and obtained a warrant to search Kyllo's home, using the results of the thermal scan as part of their probable cause. The search revealed marijuana plants, weapons, and drug paraphernalia. Kyllo moved to suppress the evidence gathered in his house on several grounds, including the use of the thermal imager without a search warrant. The trial court decided that the thermal scan did not invade a reasonable expectation of privacy, since the scan did not invade any personal privacy inside the home by revealing human activities or conversations. Upon appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in its third and final consideration of the case that a thermal scan of a residence is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, ruled that targeting a home with a thermal imager by police officers is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if police use technology from outside the home to obtain information they could not otherwise obtain without going inside, they have conducted a search within the meaning of the Constitution. This ruling suggests that law enforcement officers must assess all technological devices in their arsenal to determine the extent of their intrusive impact and the necessity of a warrant for their use. 50 notes