Kyllo vs. United States (2001)
Details: Detectives were suspicious that Danny Kyllo was illegally growing marijuana in his household so they used a thermal-imaging device and found that he was indeed growing marijuana. He was convicted with federal drug charges and believed this was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Decision/Justification: 5 votes for Kyllo, 4 votes against. Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."
Lasting effect (precedent/significance): This case puts limitations on what the police can and cannot do when it comes to search and seizure.
Important/relevant details: In the Court of Appeals, Kyllo did not show his expectation of privacy because the device did not show any intimate details of his life.
Decision/Justification: 5 votes for Kyllo, 4 votes against. Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."
Lasting effect (precedent/significance): This case puts limitations on what the police can and cannot do when it comes to search and seizure.
Important/relevant details: In the Court of Appeals, Kyllo did not show his expectation of privacy because the device did not show any intimate details of his life.