| 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 | United States v. Kyllo, 190 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 1999); cert. granted, 530 U.S. 1305 (2000). |
| Holding | |
| Thermal imaging of a home constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment and may only be done with a search 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), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant.[1] In its majority opinion, the court held that thermal imaging constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, as the police were using devices to "explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion."[2] The ruling has been noted for refining the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine in light of new surveillance technologies, and when those are used in areas that are accessible to the public.[3] This case has been praised by legal scholars since the Court refused to be the arbiter to determine "what is and is not intimate" and thus worthy of protection.[4] Instead, the Court opted to focus on "the invasiveness of the technology itself" and its ability to enable all kinds of government surveillance in the home.[4]
- ^ Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
- ^ "KYLLO V. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001)". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Retrieved June 4, 2022.
- ^ "Katz and the Adoption of the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test". Constitution Annotated. Library of Congress. Archived from the original on June 4, 2022. Retrieved June 4, 2022.
- ^ a b "Addressing the Harm of Total Surveillance: A Reply to Professor Neil Richards". Harvard Law Review. Retrieved February 22, 2024.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search