Role of technology Flashcards
Kyllo v United States
In 1991, Agent William Elliott of the United States Department of the Interior suspected that marijuana was being grown inside the home of Danny Kyllo, located in Florence, Oregon. To confirm this suspicion, Elliott and another agent used a thermal-imaging device from a public street to detect heat emanations from Kyllo’s home. The device, which does not require physical entry into a property, showed that parts of Kyllo’s home were emitting more heat than neighboring homes. Based on this evidence, along with tips from informants and utility bills, a Federal Magistrate Judge issued a warrant for a search of Kyllo’s home, where agents found a substantial marijuana growing operation. Kyllo was indicted for manufacturing marijuana. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his home on the grounds that the thermal imaging constituted an illegal search, but the motion was denied, and he entered a conditional guilty plea.
Issue
The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether 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 constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect heat emanations from a home constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the denial of Kyllo’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the thermal imaging.
