United States v. Harry, 130 F.4th 342

Kenston Harry owned and operated Action Audio, an automotive business in Hartford, CT, which became the subject of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation into drug trafficking led by his co-defendant, Tajh Wiley.
Law enforcement used a stationary, internet-connected pole camera placed across from Action Audio, recording the exterior and parking lot for 50 days, capturing publicly visible activities.
The DEA used this surveillance, along with other investigatory methods, to track drug activities involving Harry and others, leading to the discovery of significant quantities of narcotics and firearms at Action Audio, Harry’s residence, and in his car.
Harry was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, cocaine, and marijuana, as well as conspiracy charges.
At sentencing, the district court denied Harry "safety-valve" relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), resulting in a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for the fentanyl and cocaine offenses.
On appeal, Harry challenged the admissibility of the pole-camera evidence and the denial of the safety-valve relief.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless pole-camera surveillance constituted a Fourth Amendment search.	Harry: 50-day, continuous, high-tech surveillance outside business violated reasonable privacy expectations.	U.S.: Footage was of areas open to public view; surveillance tech was not unusually invasive.	No search; no warrant required for surveillance of publicly visible business exterior.
Whether Harry was entitled to "safety-valve" relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).	Harry: Did not possess firearms "in connection" with drug offenses; thus, eligible for relief.	U.S.: Firearms were stored near drugs, suggesting a nexus to drug trafficking.	Not eligible; failed to show firearms were unconnected to drug crimes.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (established reasonable expectation of privacy test for Fourth Amendment searches)
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (limited holding on cell-site location data and specifically excluded conventional cameras)
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (publicly visible areas are not protected by the Fourth Amendment)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (privacy expectations strongest within the home)
Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (reduced privacy expectations in commercial, publicly exposed areas)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (use of uncommon technology to surveil the home constitutes a search)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (physical trespass with tracking device constitutes search under Fourth Amendment)