Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

discoverypleamotionguilty plea
appealwill

Related Cases

Riddick v. City of New York, 4 A.D.3d 242, 772 N.Y.S.2d 294, 27 NDLR P 243, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 01215
View Case »
Riddick v. City of New York, 4 A.D.3d 242, 772 N.Y.S.2d 294, 27 NDLR P 243, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 01215
View Case »
Riddick v. City of New York, 4 A.D.3d 242, 772 N.Y.S.2d 294, 27 NDLR P 243, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 01215
View Case »
Riddick v. City of New York, 4 A.D.3d 242, 772 N.Y.S.2d 294, 27 NDLR P 243, 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 01215
View Case »
Brown v. Mississippi Valley State University, 311 F.3d 328, 147 Lab.Cas. P 59,698, 53 Fed.R.Serv.3d 715
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4749, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5879, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 329, 2001 DJCAR 2926

Facts

In 1991, federal agents suspected that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home, which was part of a triplex. To investigate, they used a thermal-imaging device to scan the exterior of his home for heat patterns consistent with indoor marijuana cultivation. The scan indicated that Kyllo's garage roof and side wall were significantly warmer than the rest of his home and neighboring units. Based on this information, a search warrant was issued, leading to the discovery of over 100 marijuana plants. Kyllo moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the thermal imaging, but his motion was denied, and he entered a conditional guilty plea.

In 1991 Agent William Elliott of the United States Department of the Interior came to suspect that marijuana was being grown in the home belonging to petitioner Danny Kyllo, part of a triplex on Rhododendron Drive in Florence, Oregon.

Issue

Does the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect heat emanating from a private home constitute a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment?

The question whether a warrantless search of a home is reasonable and hence constitutional must be answered no in most instances, but the antecedent question whether a Fourth Amendment 'search' has occurred is not so simple.

Rule

The use of sense-enhancing technology to gather information regarding the interior of a home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion constitutes a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

Where, as here, 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 Fourth Amendment 'search,' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

Analysis

The Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment principles to determine that the thermal imaging conducted by the government was indeed a search. The Court reasoned that the technology used was not in general public use and that it revealed details about the interior of Kyllo's home that would have been unknowable without physical intrusion. The Court rejected the government's argument that the thermal imaging was permissible because it did not reveal intimate details, asserting that all details within the home are considered intimate.

Based on this criterion, the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search. The Court rejects the Government's argument that the thermal imaging must be upheld because it detected only heat radiating from the home's external surface.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, holding that the thermal imaging constituted an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine the validity of the search warrant without the evidence obtained from the thermal imaging.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed; the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Danny Kyllo prevailed in the Supreme Court, as the Court ruled that the thermal imaging was an unlawful search, thus protecting his Fourth Amendment rights.

Danny Kyllo prevailed in the Supreme Court, as the Court ruled that the thermal imaging was an unlawful search, thus protecting his Fourth Amendment rights.

You must be