Using Tech to See Inside Your Home: Supreme Court Says It’s Illegal
New technologies come out every day, changing how we live and how the government can watch us. That’s part of the problem: the Constitution limits the government’s power, but technology gives the government powers that the court system has not determined to be legal or illegal.
What we’re going to talk about today might seem like old technology, but these concepts are important and have been for hundreds of years (because the Constitution places limitations on what our government can do). I want to talk to you about that today. Picture a machine sitting in a car across the street from your house. It points at your walls and reads the heat coming off them. The device can detect when you flip on a lamp. It can see you moving behind your walls. Yet it never touches your door. It never sets foot on your property or lawn. It simply tells the government what’s happening inside your home. Does that sound legal? The United States Supreme Court settled this question, and the protection it created is among the strongest in American law. As technology evolves, privacy concerns rise. Understanding this Supreme Court decision gives you powerful protection most people don’t realize they have.
Kylo v. United States: When the Supreme Court Protected Your Walls
Federal agents suspected a man named Danny Kylo was growing marijuana inside his home. Indoor marijuana cultivation requires high-intensity heat lamps that generate substantial warmth. So at 3:20 a.m., an agent parked across the street and pulled out a thermal imager. This device converts heat into images, showing white for hot areas and black for cool areas. Kylo’s home glowed distinctly hot compared to neighboring houses. The agents combined thermal imaging data with a tip and an examination of his power bill.
Armed with this information, they obtained a warrant, entered the home, and discovered over 100 marijuana plants. However, the case didn’t end with conviction. Instead, it went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The Court asked a fundamental question underneath everything else: before examining whether the search was reasonable, was it even a search in the first place? Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said yes. This was absolutely a search. And without a warrant, it was presumptively unconstitutional.
The Protected Place: Your Home’s Walls Are Sealed from Government Eyes
Justice Scalia’s opinion established a powerful principle about homes. The government cannot use devices that aren’t in general public use to explore details inside your home. Specifically, if the government couldn’t discover information about your interior without physically entering, using technology to gather that information constitutes a search requiring a warrant. Furthermore, all details inside a home receive protection equally.
The government argued that thermal imaging only captured heat data, nothing too revealing. Justice Scalia rejected this reasoning completely. He said the government doesn’t get to decide which interior details are boring enough to be unprotected. The government doesn’t decide which things inside your house deserve privacy. All of it is protected. The entire home is sealed off from government surveillance technology. How warm you maintain your home is nobody’s business unless police first get a warrant.
The Rule: Naked Eye Okay, Devices Require Warrants
This Supreme Court decision establishes a clear distinction prosecutors and law enforcement must follow. The naked eye from a location the government is lawfully allowed to occupy is fair game for observation. If officers standing in public airspace can see something without assistance, that observation doesn’t require a warrant. However, devices that reach into your home and extract information you couldn’t otherwise see without that technology demand a warrant.
This rule emerged from comparing two important cases. In Kylo, thermal imaging technology penetrated the home’s walls to reveal interior details. Conversely, in Florida v. Riley, helicopter surveillance from public airspace using only officers’ eyes didn’t require a warrant. The distinction is critical. Technology that extends government sight beyond natural human capability requires constitutional authorization. Naked human eyes from lawful positions don’t.
The Ticking Clock: Technology Evolution and Privacy Protection
Here’s where this Supreme Court decision faces a genuine threat. Justice Scalia’s opinion hinges on five critical words: “not in general public use.” When thermal imaging technology was rare and exotic, this protection was absolute. However, technology evolves constantly. Today, thermal imaging devices clip onto smartphones. They’re available for purchase at retail stores. As thermal imaging becomes commonplace consumer technology, courts will eventually question whether Kylo’s protection still applies.
This creates a ticking clock on your privacy. If thermal imaging devices become so widespread that ordinary people carry them, courts might conclude the technology is “in general public use.” Once they make that determination, the Supreme Court’s protection could shrink. This is exactly why Kylo remains controversial in legal circles. Courts will fight about this distinction for the next 20 years. Your thermal imaging protection today might not exist tomorrow if the technology becomes ubiquitous.
We haven’t seen a lot of litigation on Scalia’s five words, “not in general public use.” We may have put too much weight on those five words when the gist of this court’s decision, and many other home search cases, is that the home is a sacred place. The government cannot invent new ways to view it from different angles and viewpoints. They just can’t. Regardless of whether the technology is in general use or not.
Florida v. Riley: The Helicopter Surveillance Comparison
Florida has its own famous surveillance case that cuts the other direction. Police suspected a man named Riley of marijuana cultivation. Officers flew a helicopter over his property and looked down through openings in his greenhouse roof, spotting marijuana plants. The Supreme Court ruled that no warrant was required. Why? Because the helicopter occupied public airspace. Officers used nothing except their own eyes. No technology extended their vision beyond natural human capability.
When you put Kylo and Riley together, the complete rule emerges clearly. Officers in public spaces observing with their natural vision need no warrant. Conversely, technology that reaches beyond natural sight into protected spaces requires constitutional authorization. This distinction protects your home while respecting lawful government observation. Your privacy inside extends far beyond your front door.
I suspect that drone usage is going to become an issue in terms of whether or not law enforcement can use what they see through drone use as part of their search warrant applications. My hope is that the courts don’t allow this for the reasons stated in Riley, where the officers are not really using their naked eye to view a spot from the air. They are using technology, be it a drone or even a satellite. Either one would seem to be too intrusive to allow the government to search.
As of the writing of this article we don’t have good decisions one way or the other on this issue. There are so many drones out there that we know that this is coming and of course I’ll report it to you when the decisions happen.
Empowering Your Defense: What This Means for You
If police used technology to see inside your home without a warrant, they violated your Fourth Amendment rights. Evidence gathered through that unconstitutional search is suppressible. Suppression means judges exclude the evidence from trial. When evidence disappears, prosecutions often collapse entirely. Early legal help becomes critical immediately. We file motions to suppress thermal imaging evidence. Additionally, we challenge the government’s justification for using technology on your home. This isn’t a technical loophole. It’s a Supreme Court decision protecting the most fundamental constitutional space: your home.
John’s Takeaways
Here’s what you need to lock in about thermal imaging and Fourth Amendment protection:
- Kylo v. United States established that police cannot use thermal imaging or similar technology to detect details inside homes without a warrant, even from outside the property and public spaces.
- The Supreme Court ruled all details inside a home are intimate and protected equally. Government doesn’t decide which interior information is too boring to deserve privacy protection.
- Technology “not in general public use” that reaches into homes requires a warrant. Naked eye observation from public locations without technological assistance doesn’t require constitutional authorization.
- Florida v. Riley distinguished that helicopter surveillance from public airspace using only human eyes needed no warrant. Technology extending beyond natural sight requires warrants. The difference determines whether searches are constitutional.
- Thermal imaging protection faces a ticking clock as technology becomes consumer-available. Courts will debate for years whether widespread thermal imaging still requires warrants.
Your Home Is the Last Protected Place in America
Your home should be the one place where you’re truly left alone. The Supreme Court recognized this principle and protected it vigorously. Even when someone inside is guilty, the Court decided home protection matters. Police cannot peek inside your walls using technology. They cannot invade your privacy with devices you cannot detect. They cannot gather intimate information about your home without a warrant.
I’ve been defending Fourth Amendment cases since 1993. I know how to challenge search warrant evidence. I understand Kylo’s protections thoroughly. Most importantly, I know that many prosecutions fail when defendants raise proper constitutional objections. If police used technology on your home without a warrant, you have a strong defense. Call me before accepting any plea or conviction.
If you’re facing charges based on thermal imaging evidence in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Brevard, or Volusia counties, your home’s privacy protection is absolute. Free consultation. Call (407) 423-1117 today.
Watch John explain Kylo v. United States: https://youtu.be/LLTyTiRHKNY
Related: Learn more about Can the Police Bring a Drug Dog to My Front Door in Orlando?.
Your home walls are sealed from government technology. Make them prove they got a warrant first.
About John Guidry II
John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 33 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.
John Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.
Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.
When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.