United States v. Travis Tuggle
4 F.4th 505
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Law enforcement investigating a meth-distribution conspiracy installed three video cameras on public utility poles that recorded the exterior of Travis Tuggle’s home.
- Cameras were installed between 2014–2016 and recorded continuously for about eighteen months; they had pan/tilt/zoom and night lighting but no audio or infrared.
- Footage showed repeated suspected drug deliveries and corroborated other evidence; it was used to obtain search warrants and to indict Tuggle on drug and drug‑premises charges.
- Tuggle moved to suppress the pole‑camera footage as a warrantless Fourth Amendment search; the district court denied suppression and he pleaded guilty conditional on appeal.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed whether (1) isolated warrantless pole‑camera observation of a home is a Fourth Amendment search and (2) whether long‑term (mosaic) surveillance transforms such observation into a search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Isolated warrantless pole‑camera observation of a home | Pole cameras used to record the home are technological searches requiring a warrant | Cameras were on public property and observed what was knowingly exposed to the public; no search occurred | Not a search under Katz/Kyllo/Dow Cº: cameras were conventional, publicly‑available technology observing publicly visible areas |
| Prolonged (mosaic) pole‑camera surveillance (≈18 months) | Long‑term, continuous aggregation of observations creates a mosaic revealing intimate details and is a Fourth Amendment search | Mosaic theory not compelled by Supreme Court precedent; these stationary cameras did not create a comprehensive record like GPS/CSLI | Not a search under existing Supreme Court precedent (Jones/Carpenter concurrences distinguished); court expresses serious concern but declines to extend Fourth Amendment protection here |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (establishes the reasonable‑expectation‑of‑privacy test)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (trespass/property theory for GPS placement; concurrences endorse mosaic concerns)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (collection of historic CSLI over time can constitute a search)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of device not in general public use to obtain details of the home is a search)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (aerial observation from public navigable airspace not a search)
- Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986) (aerial photography of industrial facility not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (mosaic theory applied to long‑term GPS tracking)
- United States v. Cuevas‑Sanchez, 821 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1987) (pole camera over a fenced backyard that captured otherwise obscured areas was a search)
- United States v. Houston, 813 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2016) (upholding warrantless pole‑camera surveillance as non‑search)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (augmenting senses with technology generally permissible where not revealing intimate details)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (search of cell‑phone digital contents requires warrant; highlights differences between physical items and digital aggregation)