Statutory Interpretation – 4th Amendment – Search and Seizure

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Travis Tuggle

Case No.: 20-2352

Officials: FLAUM, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Statutory Interpretation – 4^th Amendment – Search and Seizure

Tuggle’s case presents an issue of first impression for this Court: whether the warrantless use of pole cameras to observe a home on either a short- or long-term basis amounts to a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. The answer—and even how to reach it—is the subject of disagreement among our sister circuits and counterparts in state courts. Their divergent answers reflect the complexity and uncertainty of the prolonged use of this technology and others like it. Nevertheless, most federal courts of appeals that have weighed in on the issue have concluded that pole camera surveillance does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.

Ultimately, bound by Supreme Court precedent and without other statutory or jurisprudential means to cabin the government’s surveillance techniques presented here, we hold that the extensive pole camera surveillance in this case did not constitute a search under the current understanding of the Fourth Amendment. In short, the government’s use of a technology in public use, while occupying a place it was lawfully entitled to be, to observe plainly visible happenings, did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Tuggle’s motion to suppress.

Affirmed

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.