Tuggle vs. United States

[D5CAV]

Wow! SCOTUS denies hearing the case! https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... ed-states/

Brennan Center filed an Amicus Curiae with SCOTUS to hear the case: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... icus-brief

Begin­ning in 2013, federal agents surrepti­tiously surveilled Travis Tuggle’s home in Mattoon, Illinois, for eight­een months as part of a drug traf­fick­ing invest­ig­a­tion. The federal agents installed three video cameras on public util­ity poles facing Tuggle’s home without a warrant or court order, repres­ent­ing a massive intru­sion on Tuggle’s privacy. The cameras recor­ded around the clock, captur­ing anybody who came and went from the home, as well as any pack­ages that were delivered.

I deal with companies that make multi-spectral cameras. Back in 2013, a multi-spectral camera was something you saw in a university lab that cost $50,000. Now they can be bought for $1000.

IANAL, but even a casual reading of the BOR says this is a 4th Amendment violation, but not according to the courts.

Tuggle sought to suppress the evid­ence gathered by the surveil­lance foot­age, arguing that the surveil­lance viol­ated his Fourth Amend­ment rights. The district court denied his motion, reas­on­ing that the exter­ior of his house was visible to any passerby in the neigh­bor­hood and that he there­fore did not have a reas­on­able expect­a­tion of privacy.

According to this ruling, affirmed by the 7th Circuit Court, any LEO can set-up HD cameras with telephoto lenses, or multi-spectral cameras around your house without a warrant for any amount of time.

Since it wasn't heard by SCOTUS, the 7th Circuit ruling stands, so anyone living in WI, IL, or IN is subject to this ruling.

Anywhere else in the US, be prepared to see the prosecutor invoke this ruling, then you can decide if you have the coin to take it to SCOTUS.

[Langenator]

The courts have long held that, as long as they do it from public property, the police can do pretty much any kind of surveillance/evidence gathering that they want. This is not new.

I specifically recall a case where a guy had built extra high (10'-12', fences around his property to hide his marijuana bushes from being visible from the street. Cops took photos from an airplane, flown in compliance with all FAA regs, then used those photos to get a search warrant. Courts ruled that since airspace is public, the photos and everything stemming from them was admisable.

The one exception I recall was a case where the cops had used thermal imagers to 'see' through the walls of a guys' residence to locate an indoor weed grow. That was a bit much for the courts.