United States v. Knotts
Encyclopedia
United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 was a 1983 United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of electronic surveillance devices. The device in question is described as a beeper and can only be tracked from a short distance. The court unanimously held that the use of such devices did not invade a legitimate expectation of privacy, and was therefore allowed, without a warrant, under the Fourth Amendment
.
rights. Just because the beeper aided the police in their investigation does not fundamentally change the nature of the surveillance. Furthermore, even though the device could have been used to track the chloroform container within a private area does not mean that the police may not use the information it gathers in a public area to the advantage.
Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment may refer to the:*Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution—part of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures....
.
Background
Minnesota law enforcement agents suspected that Armstrong was purchasing chloroform for the manufacture of illegal drugs, and arranged with the manufacturer to have a radio transmitter placed within his drum of chloroform the next time he made a purchase. Police followed his vehicle after the purchase, maintaining visual contact for most of the journey, but ultimately found his cabin through use of the beeper. Following visual surveillance of Armstrong's cabin, the authorities acquired a warrant to search the premises, and used the evidence found therein to convict Knotts.Decision
The court ruled that Armstrong had no expectation of privacy in his movements when traveling on public streets and that, because tracking Armstrong consisted primarily of visual surveillance upon such routes, this surveillance did not violate his Fourth AmendmentFourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment may refer to the:*Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution—part of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures....
rights. Just because the beeper aided the police in their investigation does not fundamentally change the nature of the surveillance. Furthermore, even though the device could have been used to track the chloroform container within a private area does not mean that the police may not use the information it gathers in a public area to the advantage.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 460
- Olmstead v. United StatesOlmstead v. United StatesOlmstead v. United States, , was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the...
- Kyllo v. United StatesKyllo v. United StatesKyllo v. United States, , held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant...
- Katz v. United StatesKatz v. United StatesKatz v. United States, , is a United States Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search." The Court’s ruling adjusted previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to count immaterial...
- United States v. GarciaUnited States v. GarciaUnited States v. Garcia was a 2007 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case regarding the use of GPS devices. The court ruled that a placing a GPS tracking device a personal vehicle without a warrant did not violate a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights....
- United States v. Pineda MorenoUnited States v. Pineda MorenoUnited States v. Pineda-Moreno was a 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case regarding the use of GPS devices. The court ruled that a placing a GPS tracking device a personal vehicle without a warrant did not violate a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights, even if the vehicle was parked in the...