UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

121 Id. at 37 n.4 (majority opinion) (“We say such measurement is a search; the dissent says it is not, because an inference is not a
search. We took that to mean that, since the technologically enhanced emanations had to be the basis of inferences before anything
inside the house could be known, the use of the emanations could not be a search.”).
122 Id. at 34 (observing that “[w]e think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the
home ... constitutes a search” (citation omitted)). For discussion of so-called “routine” technology, see infra notes 325-42 and
accompanying text.
123 Id. at 38 (observing that the thermal-imaging scan “might disclose, for example, at what hour each night the lady of the house takes
her daily sauna and bath-a detail that many would consider ‘intimate”’).
124 Id. at 47 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (arguing that the majority’s rule was “far too broad” because it would embrace “mechanical
substitutes” for detection dogs, a view that would be inconsistent with Place’s conclusion that, because a canine sniff discloses
only the presence of narcotics, it is not a “search”). The dissent pointed out the seeming inconsistency between Kyllo and Place’s
holding and argued that this inconsistency must mean that “sense-enhancing equipment that identifies nothing but illegal activity is
not a search either.” Id. at 47-48.
125 Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005).
126 See Caballes, 543 U.S. at 410 (“The legitimate expectation that information about perfectly lawful activity will remain private is
categorically distinguishable from respondent’s hopes or expectations concerning the nondetection of contraband in the trunk of his
car.”); see also supra note 90 and accompanying text.
127 468 U.S. 705 (1984).
128 “A beeper is a radio transmitter, usually battery operated, which emits periodic signals that can be picked up by a radio receiver.”
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 277 (1983).
129 Karo, 468 U.S. at 708-10.
130 Karo, 468 U.S. at 715. Although the government obtained a warrant authorizing the installment and monitoring of the beeper, the
warrant was later invalidated, and the government did not appeal that ruling. Id. at 710. Therefore, the Court was asked to consider
whether a warrant was required either to install or monitor the beeper. Id. at 711. On the installation issue, Justice White, speaking
for five other Justices, including Chief Justice Burger, concluded that no warrant was required because the installation created no
more than the “potential for an invasion of privacy.” Id. at 712. The presence of the beeper created “at most” a “technical trespass,”
the existence of which would not be determinative on the Fourth Amendment question. Id.
131 Id. at 715.
132 Id. at 710.
133 Id. at 715.
134 Id. at 716.
161