United States v. Hay, 95 F.4th 1304

Bruce Hay, a U.S. Army veteran, was convicted by a Kansas jury of ten counts of stealing government property and six counts of wire fraud for fraudulently claiming VA disability benefits.
Hay was diagnosed with a functional neurological disorder after a 2005 car accident and began receiving VA benefits in 2006.
In 2012, the VA received an anonymous tip that Hay might be exaggerating his disability; a prolonged investigation included the use of a pole-mounted, motion-activated camera facing his home.
The camera, placed on a nearby school rooftop, captured daily footage of Hay’s publicly visible activities for 68 days.
The government argued Hay exaggerated his symptoms to fraudulently collect benefits; Hay was indicted and convicted on all counts at trial.
On appeal, Hay challenged sufficiency of the evidence, the constitutionality of prolonged video surveillance without a warrant, and several evidentiary rulings by the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence: Theft (18 U.S.C. § 641)	Hay claimed the statute does not cover theft by fraud/misrepresentation.	Government contended that “stealing” includes obtaining by false pretenses.	Sufficient evidence; “stealing” includes fraud.
Sufficiency of evidence: Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343)	Hay argued there was no proof of materiality or intent to defraud.	Government asserted statements were material; evidence showed intent to defraud.	Sufficient evidence for both materiality and intent.
Fourth Amendment: Warrantless Pole Camera	Hay claimed prolonged surveillance of his home was an unreasonable, warrantless search.	Government argued footage captured only what is visible from public view.	No search; no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Evidentiary rulings	Hay alleged unfair admission of VA records, agent narration, and post-charge evidence.	Government claimed records, narration, and evidence were admissible under rules.	No abuse of discretion; all evidence properly admitted.

United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 (1957) ("Steal" includes taking by larceny, embezzlement, or false pretenses)
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (No Fourth Amendment protection for activities visible from public spaces)
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986) (Aerial surveillance of industrial complex did not require warrant)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (Use of non-common technology to view inside home is a search)
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) (Access to cell-site records constitutes a Fourth Amendment search)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (Extended GPS tracking implicates privacy in movements)