MBE Rules · Criminal Procedure
Sense-Enhancing Technology
Kyllo v. United States
The rule
Using technology not in general public use to learn details of the home's interior unknowable without physical intrusion is a search requiring a warrant.
In plain English
The rule states that if law enforcement uses advanced technology that is not commonly available to the public to gather information about the inside of a home, it constitutes a search. This type of search requires a warrant because it intrudes on an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Worked example
Police used a thermal imaging device, which is not available to the general public, to detect heat patterns inside a suspect's home, indicating possible marijuana growth. Since this technology revealed details about the home's interior that could not be known without entering the home, the court ruled that a warrant was necessary for the search. The evidence obtained was deemed inadmissible due to the lack of a warrant.
Memory hook
High-tech snooping needs a warrant to peek inside your home.
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where students confuse general surveillance with the use of specialized technology, leading them to overlook the warrant requirement. Students might also misinterpret what constitutes 'public use' of technology.
How examiners test it
Questions often involve fact patterns where law enforcement uses advanced technology to gather evidence, prompting candidates to analyze whether a warrant was required based on the specifics of the technology used.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.