Kyllo v. United States: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
For Kyllo, the result was tremendous -- the charges against him were dropped because the police could not sustain the charges without the evidence of his growing operation. Faced with clear legal authority requiring them to obtain a warrant before engaging in future thermal imaging operations, law enforcement presumably now incorporate this requirement into their drug interdiction operations. |
For Kyllo, the result was tremendous -- the charges against him were dropped because the police could not sustain the charges without the evidence of his growing operation. Faced with clear legal authority requiring them to obtain a warrant before engaging in future thermal imaging operations, law enforcement presumably now incorporate this requirement into their drug interdiction operations. |
||
==Facts== |
==Facts== |
||
Danny Lee Kyllo had been charged and convicted with growing [[marijuana]] in his [[Oregon]] home after a search was conducted. A federal agent had made observations with an [[infrared camera]] outside of Kyllo's home which showed that there was an unusual amount of heat [[Radiant energy|radiating]] from the roof and side walls of the home. (The assumption is, to grow indoors, one needs to provide lots of light so plants can [[Photosynthesis|photosynthesize]].) This information was subsequently used to obtain a search warrant, where federal agents discovered over 100 marajuana plants growing in the home. Kyllo first tried to suppress the evidence, then plead guilty. Kyllo appealed to the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court]] on the grounds that such observations with a thermal-imaging device constitutes a search under the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]]. There, the conviction was upheld. |
|||
In 1991, Agent William Elliot of the Department of the Interior came to suspect that Danny Lee Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home in Florence, Oregon. Well before dawn on January 16, 1992, Elliot and a partner were seated in his car outside Kyllo's home, armed with a thermal imaging device. The device detects the emanation of heat based on relative differences. Because an indoor marijuana growing operation requires artificial light, which generates a lot of heat, Elliot suspected that the thermal imaging scan would reveal the evidence he needed, which indeed it did. Based on that evidence, and on evidence that Kyllo was using a large amount of electricity, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search his apartment. Inside the apartment, agents found more than 100 marijuana plants. |
|||
Kyllo was charged with growing marijuana in violation of federal law. He asked the district court to suppress the marijuana because the thermal imaging had been performed without a warrant. The district court disagreed. Kyllo pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression decision. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for a hearing about the intrusiveness of the thermal imaging device. Evidence was presented at the hearing that reflected the limited capabilities of the thermal imaging device -- it could reveal heat or cold, but not the presence or absence of people within the structure or conversations between those people. The district court upheld the search, and Kyllo appealed again. |
|||
==Opinion of the Supreme Court== |
==Opinion of the Supreme Court== |
||
Revision as of 06:36, 12 August 2006
| Kyllo v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 20, 2001 Decided June 11, 2001 | |
| Full case name | Danny Lee Kyllo v. United States |
| Citations | 533 U.S. 27 (more) 121 S. Ct. 2038; 150 L. Ed. 2d 94; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4487; 69 U.S.L.W. 4431; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4749; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 5879; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2926; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 329 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
| Holding | |
| The Court held that the imaging of a home constitutes a search and may be done only with a warrant. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's apartment was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. Because the police in this case did not have a warrant, the Court reversed Kyllo's conviction for growing marijuana.
For Kyllo, the result was tremendous -- the charges against him were dropped because the police could not sustain the charges without the evidence of his growing operation. Faced with clear legal authority requiring them to obtain a warrant before engaging in future thermal imaging operations, law enforcement presumably now incorporate this requirement into their drug interdiction operations.
Facts and Procedural History
In 1991, Agent William Elliot of the Department of the Interior came to suspect that Danny Lee Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home in Florence, Oregon. Well before dawn on January 16, 1992, Elliot and a partner were seated in his car outside Kyllo's home, armed with a thermal imaging device. The device detects the emanation of heat based on relative differences. Because an indoor marijuana growing operation requires artificial light, which generates a lot of heat, Elliot suspected that the thermal imaging scan would reveal the evidence he needed, which indeed it did. Based on that evidence, and on evidence that Kyllo was using a large amount of electricity, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search his apartment. Inside the apartment, agents found more than 100 marijuana plants.
Kyllo was charged with growing marijuana in violation of federal law. He asked the district court to suppress the marijuana because the thermal imaging had been performed without a warrant. The district court disagreed. Kyllo pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression decision. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for a hearing about the intrusiveness of the thermal imaging device. Evidence was presented at the hearing that reflected the limited capabilities of the thermal imaging device -- it could reveal heat or cold, but not the presence or absence of people within the structure or conversations between those people. The district court upheld the search, and Kyllo appealed again.
Opinion of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore illegal. The decision did not break along the traditional "conservative" and "liberal" wings of the court: the majority opinion was written by Scalia, joined by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer, while Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy and Stevens dissented.