120 F.4th 1313
7th Cir.2024Background
- Charles House was investigated for drug trafficking activities based out of his home in Anderson, Indiana, including shipping drugs from California and frequent package pickups.
- Law enforcement used a warrantless pole camera to surveil the front of House’s residence for 13 months, continuously recording video footage.
- Evidence from the pole camera was used to establish patterns connecting House to intercepted packages containing drugs and to identify a confidential informant.
- House was indicted on multiple drug and firearm charges, and moved to suppress the pole camera evidence, acknowledging that Seventh Circuit precedent in United States v. Tuggle foreclosed his argument.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress based on Tuggle; House was convicted and sentenced to 360 months in prison. He appealed, arguing that long-term pole camera surveillance of a home is an unconstitutional search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is warrantless pole camera surveillance of a home's exterior a Fourth Amendment search? | No search occurs; activity is observable to the public; follows Tuggle and Supreme Court precedent. | Long-term, warrantless video surveillance of a home’s curtilage is a search under the Fourth Amendment. | Not a search; affirmed Tuggle, surveillance of areas exposed to public does not violate Fourth Amendment. |
| Does prolonged (13+ months) surveillance alter the Fourth Amendment analysis? | Duration is irrelevant if activity is public; mosaic theory not adopted by Supreme Court. | Prolonged surveillance aggregates private moments into an unconstitutional intrusion (mosaic theory). | No; Tuggle forecloses challenge based on surveillance length; mosaic theory not binding. |
| Does modern camera technology create new privacy expectations? | Cameras are now ubiquitous and public; use is analogous to non-technological surveillance; technology not dispositive. | Modern surveillance and data aggregation can expose intimate private patterns, changing the expectation of privacy. | Court declined to reconsider in absence of Supreme Court direction; existing precedent governs. |
| Should the court overrule Tuggle in light of First Circuit concurrence (Moore-Bush)? | No intervening Supreme Court case requires reconsideration; majority of circuits follow Tuggle. | Moore-Bush concurrence supports adopting the mosaic theory and recognizing enhanced privacy in the curtilage. | No; reaffirmed Tuggle, noting only one circuit has diverged. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tuggle, 4 F.4th 505 (7th Cir. 2021) (held warrantless pole camera surveillance of home's exterior does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established "reasonable expectation of privacy" test for Fourth Amendment analysis)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (held no reasonable expectation of privacy in activities visible from public airspace above a home)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of technology not in general public use to gather information from inside a residence is a search)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986) (aerial surveillance of industrial complex not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation of GPS device on vehicle is a search; discussed mosaic theory)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (warrantless search of cell phones violates Fourth Amendment due to extensive data)
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) (accessing historical cell phone location data without a warrant is a search)