U.S. v. Tuggle

In prosecution on drug distribution and maintaining drug-involved premises charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress 18 months of video evidence from three cameras located on utility poles outside of defendant’s home, even though defendant argued said evidence constituted unlawful warrantless search under 4th Amendment. Dist. Ct. could properly find that instant camera usage over short period of time did not constitute “search” for 4th Amendment purposes, where: (1) defendant knowingly exposed areas outside his home that were captured by instant three cameras; (2) defendant did not have expectation of privacy that society would be willing to accept as reasonable in what happened in front of defendant’s home; and (3) instant videos were generated from traditional cameras, as opposed to devices producing thermal images that attempt to detect conduct occurring inside defendant’s home. However, with respect to images spanning over 18 months, Ct. found that it was closer question as to whether such recordings constituted search under 4th Amendment under “mosaic” theory, which recognizes that whole of defendant’s movements over longer periods of time are not actually exposed to public because there is no likelihood that member of public would have been present over entirety of said period to observe defendant’s movements. Ct., though, found that instant 18-month surveillance by pole cameras was not search under mosaic theory, since cameras only captured movements outside of defendant’s home and did not cover activities away from his home.