karo
argued
april
decided
july
drug
enforcement
administration
dea
agent
learned
respondents
karo
horton
harley
ordered
gallons
ether
government
informant
told
agent
ether
used
extract
cocaine
clothing
imported
government
obtained
order
authorizing
installation
monitoring
beeper
one
cans
ether
informant
consent
dea
agents
substituted
containing
beeper
one
cans
shipment
thereafter
agents
saw
karo
pick
ether
informant
followed
karo
house
determined
using
beeper
ether
inside
house
monitored
ether
moved
succession
two
houses
including
horton
moved
first
locker
one
commercial
storage
facility
locker
another
facility
lockers
rented
jointly
horton
harley
finally
ether
removed
second
storage
facility
respondent
rhodes
unidentified
woman
transported
horton
truck
first
rhodes
house
house
rented
horton
harley
respondent
steele
using
beeper
monitor
agents
determined
beeper
inside
house
obtained
warrant
search
house
based
part
information
derived
use
beeper
warrant
executed
horton
harley
steele
respondent
roth
arrested
cocaine
seized
respondents
indicted
various
offenses
relating
cocaine
district
granted
respondent
pretrial
motion
suppress
seized
evidence
grounds
initial
warrant
install
beeper
invalid
seizure
tainted
fruit
unauthorized
installation
monitoring
beeper
government
appealed
challenge
invalidation
initial
warrant
appeals
affirmed
except
respect
rhodes
holding
warrant
required
install
beeper
ether
monitor
private
dwellings
storage
lockers
warrant
search
house
rented
horton
harley
steele
resulting
seizure
tainted
government
prior
illegal
conduct
therefore
evidence
properly
suppressed
horton
harley
steele
roth
karo
held
fourth
amendment
interest
karo
respondent
infringed
installation
beeper
informant
consent
sufficient
validate
installation
transfer
karo
neither
search
seizure
since
conveyed
information
karo
wished
keep
private
interfere
anyone
possessory
interest
meaningful
way
pp
monitoring
beeper
private
residence
location
opened
visual
surveillance
violates
fourth
amendment
rights
justifiable
interest
privacy
residence
dea
agent
entered
house
question
without
warrant
verify
ether
house
engaged
unreasonable
search
within
meaning
fourth
amendment
result
without
warrant
government
surreptitiously
uses
beeper
obtain
information
obtained
outside
curtilage
house
reason
case
deviate
general
rule
search
house
conducted
pursuant
warrant
pp
evidence
seized
house
question
however
suppressed
respect
respondents
information
ether
house
verified
use
beeper
without
warrant
inadmissible
respondents
privacy
interests
house
invalidate
search
warrant
critical
establishing
probable
cause
locating
without
prior
monitoring
ether
second
storage
facility
illegal
search
use
beeper
identifying
specific
locker
ether
located
locker
identified
smell
ether
emanating
therefrom
ether
seen
loaded
horton
truck
traveled
highways
evident
violation
fourth
amendment
anyone
without
standing
complain
monitoring
beeper
located
truck
knotts
circumstances
warrant
affidavit
striking
facts
monitoring
beeper
searched
house
contained
sufficient
untainted
information
furnish
probable
cause
issuance
search
warrant
pp
white
delivered
opinion
burger
blackmun
powell
joined
parts
ii
iv
rehnquist
joined
part
iii
brennan
marshall
stevens
joined
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
rehnquist
joined
post
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
brennan
marshall
joined
post
deputy
solicitor
general
frey
argued
cause
briefs
solicitor
general
lee
assistant
attorney
general
trott
elliott
schulder
vincent
gambale
charles
louis
roberts
argued
cause
respondents
brief
respondents
harley
et
al
joseph
sib
abraham
michael
vigil
reber
boult
nancy
hollander
james
beam
filed
brief
respondents
karo
et
al
roger
bargas
appointment
filed
brief
respondent
rhodes
gerald
goldstein
filed
brief
national
association
criminal
defense
lawyers
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
white
delivered
opinion
knotts
held
warrantless
monitoring
electronic
tracking
device
beeper
inside
container
chemicals
violate
fourth
amendment
revealed
information
obtained
visual
surveillance
case
called
upon
address
two
questions
left
unresolved
knotts
whether
installation
beeper
container
chemicals
consent
original
owner
constitutes
search
seizure
within
meaning
fourth
amendment
container
delivered
buyer
knowledge
presence
beeper
whether
monitoring
beeper
falls
within
ambit
fourth
amendment
reveals
information
obtained
visual
surveillance
august
agent
rottinger
drug
enforcement
administration
dea
learned
respondents
james
karo
richard
horton
william
harley
ordered
gallons
ether
government
informant
carl
muehlenweg
graphic
photo
design
albuquerque
muehlenweg
told
rottinger
ether
used
extract
cocaine
clothing
imported
government
obtained
order
authorizing
installation
monitoring
beeper
one
cans
ether
muehlenweg
consent
agents
substituted
containing
beeper
one
cans
shipment
cans
painted
give
uniform
appearance
september
agents
saw
karo
pick
ether
muehlenweg
followed
karo
house
using
visual
beeper
surveillance
one
point
later
day
agents
determined
using
beeper
ether
still
inside
house
later
determined
moved
undetected
horton
house
located
using
beeper
agent
rottinger
smell
ether
public
sidewalk
near
horton
residence
two
days
later
agents
discovered
ether
moved
using
beeper
located
residence
horton
father
next
day
beeper
longer
transmitting
horton
father
house
agents
traced
beeper
commercial
storage
facility
beeper
equipment
sensitive
enough
allow
agents
learn
precisely
locker
ether
agents
obtained
subpoena
records
storage
company
learned
locker
rented
horton
using
beeper
agents
confirmed
ether
indeed
one
lockers
row
containing
locker
using
noses
detected
odor
ether
emanating
locker
october
agents
obtained
order
authorizing
installation
entry
tone
alarm
door
jamb
locker
able
tell
door
opened
installing
alarm
agents
observed
cans
containing
ether
still
inside
agents
ceased
visual
beeper
surveillance
relying
instead
entry
tone
alarm
however
october
horton
retrieved
contents
locker
without
sounding
alarm
agents
learn
entry
manager
storage
facility
notified
horton
using
beeper
agents
traced
beeper
another
facility
three
days
later
agents
detected
smell
ether
coming
locker
learned
manager
horton
harley
rented
locker
using
alias
day
ether
removed
first
storage
facility
agents
obtained
order
authorizing
installation
entry
tone
alarm
locker
instead
installing
alarm
obtained
consent
manager
facility
install
video
camera
locker
view
locker
february
agents
observed
means
video
camera
gene
rhodes
unidentified
woman
removing
cans
locker
loading
onto
rear
bed
horton
pickup
truck
using
visual
beeper
surveillance
agents
tracked
truck
rhodes
residence
parked
driveway
agents
observed
rhodes
woman
bringing
boxes
items
inside
house
loading
items
trunk
automobile
agents
see
cans
transferred
pickup
february
car
pickup
left
driveway
traveled
along
public
highways
taos
trip
two
vehicles
physical
electronic
surveillance
vehicles
arrived
house
taos
rented
horton
harley
michael
steele
agents
maintain
tight
surveillance
fear
detection
vehicles
left
taos
residence
agents
determined
using
beeper
monitor
beeper
still
inside
house
february
beeper
revealed
ether
still
premises
one
point
agents
noticed
windows
house
wide
open
cold
windy
day
leading
suspect
ether
used
february
agents
applied
obtained
warrant
search
taos
residence
based
part
information
derived
use
beeper
warrant
executed
february
horton
harley
steele
evan
roth
arrested
cocaine
laboratory
equipment
seized
respondents
karo
horton
harley
steele
roth
indicted
conspiring
possess
cocaine
intent
distribute
underlying
offense
respondent
rhodes
indicted
conspiracy
possess
district
granted
respondents
pretrial
motion
suppress
evidence
seized
taos
residence
grounds
initial
warrant
install
beeper
invalid
taos
seizure
tainted
fruit
unauthorized
installation
monitoring
beeper
appealed
challenge
invalidation
initial
warrant
appeals
affirmed
except
respect
rhodes
holding
warrant
required
install
beeper
one
cans
ether
monitor
private
dwellings
storage
lockers
warrant
search
taos
resulting
seizure
tainted
prior
illegal
conduct
government
evidence
therefore
properly
suppressed
respect
respondents
horton
harley
steele
roth
held
protectible
interests
privacy
taos
dwelling
respect
respondent
karo
beeper
installed
without
warrant
monitored
host
house
granted
government
petition
certiorari
raised
question
whether
warrant
required
authorize
either
installation
beeper
subsequent
monitoring
deal
contention
turn
ii
judgment
favor
karo
rested
major
part
conclusion
installation
violated
fourth
amendment
rights
information
obtained
monitoring
beeper
tainted
initial
illegality
must
deal
legality
warrantless
installation
clear
actual
placement
beeper
violated
one
fourth
amendment
rights
beeper
placed
belonged
time
dea
stretch
imagination
said
respondents
legitimate
expectation
privacy
ether
original
cans
hand
belonged
possession
muehlenweg
given
consent
invasion
items
occurred
thus
even
substitution
cans
agents
placed
beeper
one
original
cans
muehlenweg
consent
sufficient
validate
placement
beeper
see
matlock
frazier
cupp
appeals
acknowledged
karo
took
control
ether
dea
muehlenweg
presumably
ether
whatever
liked
without
violating
karo
rights
hold
actual
placement
beeper
ether
violated
fourth
amendment
instead
held
violation
occurred
time
transferred
karo
stated
individuals
legitimate
expectation
privacy
objects
coming
rightful
ownership
electronic
devices
attached
devices
give
law
enforcement
agents
opportunity
monitor
location
objects
times
every
place
objects
taken
including
inside
private
residences
areas
right
free
warrantless
governmental
intrusion
unquestioned
ibid
likewise
believe
transfer
container
constituted
seizure
seizure
property
occurs
meaningful
interference
individual
possessory
interests
property
ibid
although
may
contained
unknown
unwanted
foreign
object
said
anyone
possessory
interest
interfered
meaningful
way
technical
trespass
space
occupied
beeper
existence
physical
trespass
marginally
relevant
question
whether
fourth
amendment
violated
however
actual
trespass
neither
necessary
sufficient
establish
constitutional
violation
compare
katz
trespass
fourth
amendment
violation
oliver
trespass
fourth
amendment
violation
course
presence
beeper
constituted
seizure
merely
occupation
space
follow
presence
object
regardless
nature
violate
fourth
amendment
conclude
fourth
amendment
interest
karo
respondent
infringed
installation
beeper
rather
impairment
privacy
interests
may
occurred
occasioned
monitoring
beeper
iii
knotts
law
enforcement
officials
consent
seller
installed
beeper
chloroform
monitored
beeper
delivery
buyer
minneapolis
minn
although
partial
visual
surveillance
automobile
containing
moved
along
public
highways
beeper
enabled
officers
locate
area
cabin
near
shell
lake
information
provided
basis
issuance
search
warrant
case
came
us
installation
beeper
challenged
monitoring
issue
held
since
movements
automobile
arrival
containing
beeper
area
cabin
observed
naked
eye
fourth
amendment
violation
committed
monitoring
beeper
trip
cabin
knotts
record
show
beeper
monitored
containing
inside
cabin
therefore
occasion
consider
whether
constitutional
violation
occurred
fact
otherwise
gainsaying
beeper
used
locate
ether
specific
house
taos
information
turn
used
secure
warrant
search
house
affidavit
supporting
application
search
warrant
recited
ether
arrived
residence
motor
vehicle
later
departed
fear
detection
maintain
tight
surveillance
residence
using
beeper
locator
positively
determined
beeper
ether
described
earlier
affidavit
inside
premises
searched
beeper
locator
direction
finder
pinpointed
beeper
signal
emanating
premises
later
saturday
daytime
february
beeper
locator
still
shows
strong
beeper
signal
emanating
inside
residence
app
risk
belaboring
obvious
private
residences
places
individual
normally
expects
privacy
free
governmental
intrusion
authorized
warrant
expectation
plainly
one
society
prepared
recognize
justifiable
cases
deviated
basic
fourth
amendment
principle
searches
seizures
inside
home
without
warrant
presumptively
unreasonable
absent
exigent
circumstances
welsh
wisconsin
steagald
payton
new
york
case
dea
agent
thought
useful
enter
taos
residence
verify
ether
actually
house
done
surreptitiously
without
warrant
little
doubt
engaged
unreasonable
search
within
meaning
fourth
amendment
purposes
amendment
result
without
warrant
government
surreptitiously
employs
electronic
device
obtain
information
obtained
observation
outside
curtilage
house
beeper
tells
agent
particular
article
actually
located
particular
time
private
residence
possession
person
persons
whose
residence
watched
even
visual
surveillance
revealed
article
beeper
attached
entered
house
later
monitoring
verifies
officers
observations
also
establishes
article
remains
premises
example
beeper
monitored
significant
period
arrival
ether
taos
application
warrant
search
monitoring
electronic
device
beeper
course
less
intrusive
search
reveal
critical
fact
interior
premises
government
extremely
interested
knowing
otherwise
obtained
without
warrant
case
thus
like
knotts
beeper
told
authorities
nothing
interior
knotts
cabin
information
obtained
knotts
voluntarily
conveyed
anyone
wanted
look
said
monitoring
indicated
beeper
inside
house
fact
visually
verified
accept
government
contention
completely
free
constraints
fourth
amendment
determine
means
electronic
device
without
warrant
without
probable
cause
reasonable
suspicion
whether
particular
article
person
matter
individual
home
particular
time
indiscriminate
monitoring
property
withdrawn
public
view
present
far
serious
threat
privacy
interests
home
escape
entirely
sort
fourth
amendment
oversight
also
reject
government
contention
able
monitor
beepers
private
residences
without
warrant
requisite
justification
facts
believing
crime
committed
monitoring
beeper
wherever
goes
likely
produce
evidence
criminal
activity
warrantless
searches
presumptively
unreasonable
though
recognized
limited
exceptions
general
rule
see
ross
automobiles
schneckloth
bustamonte
consent
warden
hayden
exigent
circumstances
government
contention
warrantless
beeper
searches
deemed
reasonable
based
upon
deprecation
benefits
exaggeration
difficulties
associated
procurement
warrant
government
argues
traditional
justifications
warrant
requirement
inapplicable
beeper
cases
large
extent
argument
based
upon
contention
rejected
beeper
constitutes
minuscule
intrusion
protected
privacy
interests
primary
reason
warrant
requirement
interpose
neutral
detached
magistrate
citizen
officer
engaged
often
competitive
enterprise
ferreting
crime
johnson
suspected
drug
offenses
less
entitled
protection
suspected
nondrug
offenses
requiring
warrant
salutary
effect
ensuring
use
beepers
abused
imposing
upon
agents
requirement
demonstrate
advance
justification
desired
search
say
exceptions
warrant
rule
truly
exigent
circumstances
exist
warrant
required
general
fourth
amendment
principles
agents
required
obtain
warrants
prior
monitoring
beeper
withdrawn
public
view
government
argues
practical
purposes
forced
obtain
warrants
every
case
seek
use
beeper
way
knowing
advance
whether
beeper
transmitting
signals
inside
private
premises
argument
warrant
requirement
oblige
government
obtain
warrants
large
number
cases
hardly
compelling
argument
requirement
worthy
note
event
particularly
attractive
case
argue
impractical
obtain
warrant
since
warrant
fact
obtained
case
seemingly
probable
cause
also
unpersuaded
argument
warrant
required
difficulty
satisfying
particularity
requirement
fourth
amendment
government
contends
impossible
describe
place
searched
location
place
precisely
sought
discovered
search
brief
however
true
may
still
possible
describe
object
beeper
placed
circumstances
led
agents
wish
install
beeper
length
time
beeper
surveillance
requested
view
information
suffice
permit
issuance
warrant
authorizing
beeper
installation
surveillance
sum
discern
reason
deviating
general
rule
search
house
conducted
pursuant
warrant
iv
said
maintaining
beeper
agents
verified
ether
actually
located
taos
house
remained
warrant
sought
information
obtained
without
warrant
therefore
inadmissible
trial
privacy
interests
house
horton
harley
steele
roth
information
included
warrant
affidavit
also
invalidate
warrant
search
house
proved
critical
establishing
probable
cause
issuance
warrant
however
sufficient
untainted
evidence
presented
warrant
affidavit
establish
probable
cause
warrant
nevertheless
valid
franks
delaware
requires
casual
examination
warrant
affidavit
relevant
respects
consists
undisputed
factual
assertions
conclude
officers
secured
warrant
without
relying
beeper
locate
ether
house
sought
searched
affidavit
recounted
tracking
evidence
including
visual
beeper
surveillance
horton
pickup
trip
albuquerque
immediate
vicinity
taos
residence
departure
short
time
later
without
ether
later
return
residence
visual
observation
residence
windows
open
cold
night
leaves
question
whether
part
additional
information
contained
warrant
affidavit
fruit
fourth
amendment
violation
occupants
house
object
far
present
record
reveals
two
four
respondents
standing
object
search
residence
steele
roth
interest
arguably
private
places
beeper
monitored
prior
arrival
taos
evidence
seized
house
admissible
question
horton
harley
somewhat
complicated
initial
leg
journey
ether
came
rest
karo
house
monitored
moved
succession
two
houses
including
horton
moved
first
locker
one
public
warehouse
locker
another
lockers
rented
jointly
horton
harley
september
ether
removed
second
storage
facility
transported
taos
assuming
present
purposes
prior
arrival
second
warehouse
beeper
illegally
used
locate
ether
house
place
horton
harley
justifiable
claim
privacy
confident
use
beeper
taint
later
use
locating
ether
tracking
taos
movement
ether
first
warehouse
undetected
monitoring
beeper
agents
discovered
moved
second
storage
facility
prior
monitoring
beeper
contributed
discovery
using
beeper
purpose
thus
untainted
possible
prior
illegality
furthermore
beeper
informed
agents
ether
somewhere
warehouse
identify
specific
locker
ether
located
monitoring
beeper
revealed
nothing
contents
locker
horton
harley
rented
hence
search
locker
locker
identified
agents
traversing
public
parts
facility
found
smell
ether
coming
specific
locker
agents
set
visual
surveillance
locker
september
observed
rhodes
female
remove
ether
load
horton
pickup
truck
truck
moved
public
streets
tracked
beeper
rhodes
house
temporarily
parked
truck
observed
departing
tracked
visually
beeper
vicinity
house
taos
locating
ether
warehouse
illegal
search
ether
seen
loaded
horton
truck
traveled
public
highways
evident
knotts
violation
fourth
amendment
anyone
without
standing
complain
monitoring
beeper
located
horton
truck
circumstances
clear
warrant
affidavit
striking
facts
monitoring
beeper
taos
residence
contained
sufficient
untainted
information
furnish
probable
cause
issuance
search
warrant
evidence
seized
house
suppressed
respect
respondents
judgment
appeals
accordingly
reversed
footnotes
appeals
reversed
rhodes
since
shown
beeper
located
place
reasonable
expectation
privacy
shown
possessory
interest
ether
invaded
installation
beeper
despite
holding
warrants
installation
monitoring
beeper
obviously
desirable
since
may
useful
even
critical
monitor
beeper
determine
actually
located
place
open
visual
surveillance
evident
monitoring
without
warrant
may
violate
fourth
amendment
justice
observes
homeowner
reasonable
expectation
person
invited
home
wired
microphone
transmits
conversations
engages
see
white
proposition
concludes
homeowner
reasonable
expectation
invitee
bring
object
containing
beeper
home
post
observation
relevant
one
conspirators
case
consented
placement
beeper
relevance
case
hand
surely
government
surreptitiously
plants
listening
device
unsuspecting
household
guest
family
member
monitors
conversations
homeowner
homeowner
challenge
monitoring
conversations
regardless
fact
power
give
effective
consent
search
visitor
post
plurality
recognized
white
supra
substantial
distinction
revelation
government
party
conversations
defendant
eavesdropping
conversations
without
knowledge
consent
either
party
homeowner
takes
risk
guest
cooperate
government
risk
trustworthy
friend
bugged
government
without
knowledge
consent
justice
view
easily
said
katz
katz
reasonable
expectation
privacy
conversation
person
speaking
might
divulged
contents
conversation
nothing
left
fourth
amendment
right
privacy
anything
hypothetical
government
informant
might
reveal
stripped
constitutional
protection
rawlings
kentucky
simply
inapposite
since
rawlings
home
challenged
search
occurred
cf
alderman
homeowner
standing
challenge
illegal
search
house
even
interest
property
seized
justice
seems
recognize
much
noting
discussion
katz
post
third
person
never
used
particular
telephone
line
standing
challenge
illegal
eavesdropping
phone
line
third
person
however
different
analysis
involved
insists
beeper
monitoring
deemed
search
showing
reasonable
suspicion
rather
probable
cause
suffice
execution
issue
however
us
initial
warrant
invalidated
want
probable
cause
plainly
existed
misleading
statements
affidavit
government
appeal
invalidation
warrant
case
turned
government
prevails
without
warrant
authorizing
installation
time
enough
resolve
probable
suspicion
issue
case
requires
monitoring
disclosed
presence
container
within
particular
locker
result
otherwise
surely
horton
harley
reasonable
expectation
privacy
storage
locker
although
unwarranted
monitoring
beeper
karo
house
foreclose
using
evidence
taint
discovery
ether
second
warehouse
ensuing
surveillance
trip
taos
justice
justice
rehnquist
joins
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
join
parts
ii
iv
opinion
agree
substantial
portions
part
iii
well
agree
installation
beeper
container
consent
container
present
owner
implicates
fourth
amendment
concerns
subsequent
transfer
container
unactivated
beeper
one
unaware
beeper
presence
also
unobjectionable
beeper
activated
track
movements
container
privacy
interests
implicated
view
however
privacy
interests
unusually
narrow
narrower
suggested
part
iii
opinion
container
moved
public
highways
places
container
owner
reasonable
expectation
movements
tracked
without
consent
activation
beeper
infringes
reasonable
expectation
privacy
knotts
situation
location
container
defeats
expectation
movements
tracked
addition
one
lacks
ownership
container
power
move
container
reasonable
expectation
movements
container
tracked
beeper
within
container
regardless
container
moved
situation
absence
appropriate
interest
container
defeats
expectation
privacy
movements
container
even
container
brought
places
others
may
privacy
interest
cf
rawlings
kentucky
white
lopez
threshold
matter
clear
mere
presence
electronic
equipment
inside
home
transmitting
information
government
agents
outside
infringe
legitimate
expectations
privacy
expectation
privacy
home
example
white
supra
permitted
use
information
obtained
within
home
means
microphone
secreted
government
agent
must
therefore
look
something
concluding
monitoring
beeper
closed
container
brought
home
violates
homeowner
reasonable
expectations
privacy
holds
crucial
additional
factor
container
owner
consent
lack
consent
installation
beeper
consent
given
movement
container
home
violates
reasonable
expectation
privacy
homeowner
container
owner
consent
obtained
holds
homeowner
expectations
privacy
home
violated
beeper
enters
monitored
inside
home
even
homeowner
interest
expectation
privacy
container
view
analysis
somewhat
flawed
first
test
proposed
seems
squarely
inconsistent
rawlings
kentucky
supra
rawlings
approved
admission
drugs
seized
woman
purse
male
companion
prove
legitimate
expectation
privacy
purse
indeed
male
companion
lacked
standing
challenge
search
even
though
claimed
ownership
drugs
found
purse
purse
contained
beeper
reason
evidence
crime
owner
purse
companion
objected
admission
beeper
evidence
search
closed
container
occurs
without
consent
container
owner
give
every
defendant
right
suppress
incriminating
evidence
found
container
test
monitoring
beeper
inside
guest
closed
private
container
violates
homeowner
expectations
privacy
moreover
difficult
reconcile
matlock
many
similar
decisions
address
expectations
privacy
closed
containers
homeowner
entirely
lacks
access
control
guest
closed
container
presumably
lack
power
consent
search
standards
articulated
matlock
supra
surely
homeowner
simultaneously
little
interest
container
consent
search
constitutionally
ineffective
great
interest
container
search
violates
constitutional
rights
standing
object
search
container
power
give
effective
consent
search
go
hand
hand
finally
fundamentally
difficult
see
homeowner
expectations
privacy
depend
way
invitee
actual
status
government
informant
expectations
formed
basis
objective
appearances
basis
facts
known
others
stated
another
way
homeowner
expectation
container
contain
beeper
depend
container
owner
belief
container
homeowner
expectation
privacy
either
inherently
reasonable
inherently
unreasonable
guest
undisclosed
status
government
informant
alter
reasonableness
expectation
ii
therefore
use
different
generally
narrower
test
one
proposed
determining
activated
beeper
closed
container
violates
privacy
homeowner
whose
home
container
moved
use
touchstone
defendant
interest
container
beeper
placed
closed
container
moved
permission
home
homeowner
others
expectation
privacy
home
surrender
expectation
privacy
might
otherwise
retain
movements
container
unless
container
dominion
control
reasons
preferring
approach
require
elaboration
principles
assessing
single
person
privacy
interests
particular
place
location
transmission
system
telephone
line
reasonably
well
settled
relies
principles
particularly
strong
presumption
privacy
home
analyze
beeper
case
presented
movement
guest
closed
container
another
home
involves
overlapping
privacy
interests
privacy
interests
particular
locations
shared
several
persons
assessing
expectations
privacy
requires
probing
analysis
privacy
interest
home
need
coextensive
privacy
interest
contents
movements
everything
situated
inside
home
recognized
connection
consent
searches
homeowner
consent
search
home
may
effective
consent
search
closed
object
inside
home
consent
search
container
place
effective
given
one
common
authority
sufficient
relationship
premises
effects
sought
inspected
matlock
common
authority
rests
mutual
use
property
persons
generally
joint
access
control
purposes
person
privacy
interest
whatsoever
particular
container
place
conversation
rawlings
kentucky
fourth
amendment
analysis
straightforward
person
lacks
standing
suppress
evidence
obtained
pursuant
unlawful
search
place
unlawful
monitoring
conversation
thus
third
person
never
used
particular
telephone
line
suppress
least
fourth
amendment
grounds
evidence
obtained
unlawful
wiretap
conversations
two
persons
another
relatively
easy
case
arises
two
persons
share
identical
overlapping
privacy
interests
particular
place
container
conversation
share
power
surrender
privacy
third
party
persons
share
access
closed
containers
also
share
power
consent
search
neither
consents
retain
right
object
fruits
unlawful
search
similarly
two
people
speak
face
face
private
place
private
telephone
line
may
share
expectation
conversation
remain
private
katz
either
may
give
effective
consent
wiretap
electronic
surveillance
white
one
might
say
telephone
line
simply
space
separates
two
persons
conversation
jointly
owned
container
standing
challenge
use
evidence
fruits
unauthorized
search
container
either
may
also
give
effective
consent
search
difficult
case
arises
one
person
privacy
interests
fall
within
another
guest
private
home
private
container
homeowner
right
access
homeowner
permits
entry
home
container
effectively
surrenders
segment
privacy
home
privacy
owner
container
insofar
may
possible
search
container
without
searching
home
homeowner
suffers
invasion
privacy
search
occurs
homeowner
also
lacks
power
give
effective
consent
search
closed
container
example
evidence
obtained
electronic
device
container
transmitted
information
contents
container
suppressed
homeowner
unless
also
privacy
interest
container
even
information
transmitted
inside
home
beeper
case
however
transmitted
information
location
contents
container
conceivably
location
home
attribute
partly
home
partly
container
primary
privacy
interest
homeowner
giving
consent
another
move
closed
container
home
homeowner
effectively
surrendered
privacy
insofar
location
container
may
concerned
assume
absent
evidence
contrary
words
one
lacks
dominion
control
object
location
privacy
interest
invaded
information
disclosed
simply
secret
beeper
disclosing
privacy
invaded
search
container
whose
contents
control
iii
sum
privacy
interest
location
closed
container
enters
home
homeowner
permission
inferred
mechanically
reference
general
privacy
interests
home
homeowner
privacy
interests
often
narrower
owner
container
defendant
allowed
challenge
evidence
obtained
monitoring
beeper
installed
closed
container
beeper
monitored
visual
tracking
container
possible
defendant
reasonable
expectation
container
movements
remain
private
defendant
interest
container
sufficient
empower
give
effective
consent
search
container
person
right
container
tracked
means
beeper
depends
power
prevent
visual
observation
container
power
control
location
power
usually
inferred
privacy
interest
container
one
lacks
either
power
legitimate
expectation
privacy
movements
container
reasons
stated
part
iv
justice
white
opinion
agree
decision
must
reversed
container
moved
home
without
permission
homeowner
course
retains
legitimate
expectation
container
enter
home
fortiori
legitimate
expectation
knowledge
container
location
inside
home
broadcast
world
outside
see
broader
standing
rules
suppress
wiretap
evidence
set
statute
justice
stevens
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
concurring
part
dissenting
part
beeper
species
radio
transmitter
mounted
inside
container
much
common
microphone
mounted
person
reveals
location
item
attached
functional
equivalent
radio
transmission
saying
threshold
question
case
whether
beeper
invaded
interest
protected
fourth
amendment
wrote
earlier
term
fourth
amendment
protects
two
kinds
expectations
one
involving
searches
seizures
search
occurs
expectation
privacy
society
prepared
consider
reasonable
infringed
seizure
property
occurs
meaningful
interference
individual
possessory
interests
property
jacobsen
footnotes
omitted
attachment
beeper
judgment
constituted
seizure
owner
property
course
right
exclude
world
including
government
concomitant
right
use
exclusively
purposes
government
attaches
electronic
monitoring
device
property
infringes
exclusionary
right
fundamental
sense
converted
property
use
surely
invasion
interference
possessory
rights
right
exclude
attached
soon
respondents
purchased
delivered
infringed
interference
also
meaningful
character
property
profoundly
different
infected
electronic
bug
entirely
germ
free
impact
possessory
rights
type
governmental
conduct
illustrated
silverman
held
attachment
microphone
heating
duct
apartment
building
order
eavesdrop
conversations
nearby
apartment
implicated
fourth
amendment
officers
overheard
petitioners
conversations
usurping
part
petitioners
house
office
heating
system
integral
part
premises
occupied
petitioners
usurpation
effected
without
knowledge
without
consent
circumstances
need
pause
consider
whether
technical
trespass
local
property
law
relating
party
walls
inherent
fourth
amendment
rights
inevitably
measurable
terms
ancient
niceties
tort
real
property
law
omitted
ii
developed
relatively
straightforward
test
determining
expectations
privacy
protected
fourth
amendment
respect
possession
personal
property
personal
property
plain
view
public
possession
property
sense
private
hence
unprotected
person
knowingly
exposes
public
even
home
office
subject
fourth
amendment
protection
katz
person
property
concealed
public
view
however
fact
possession
private
subject
fourth
amendment
protection
one
point
virtually
unanimous
agreement
robbins
california
constitutional
distinction
worthy
unworthy
containers
improper
central
purpose
fourth
amendment
forecloses
distinction
frail
cottage
kingdom
absolutely
entitled
guarantees
privacy
majestic
mansion
also
may
traveler
carries
toothbrush
articles
clothing
paper
bag
knotted
scarf
claim
equal
right
conceal
possessions
official
inspection
sophisticated
executive
locked
attache
case
ross
knotts
illustrates
approach
agents
watched
container
chloroform
placed
beeper
delivered
knotts
codefendant
placed
car
used
beeper
track
car
movements
single
trip
public
place
used
way
beeper
disclose
codefendant
possession
property
agents
already
knew
revealed
route
trip
areas
open
public
something
hardly
concealed
public
view
held
person
traveling
automobile
public
throroughfares
reasonable
expectation
privacy
movements
one
place
another
certainly
true
homeowner
reasonable
expectation
privacy
contents
home
including
items
owned
others
alderman
focusing
interest
homeowner
obscure
independent
interest
possession
property
monitored
use
beeper
property
home
location
concealed
public
view
case
beeper
enabled
agents
learn
facts
exposed
public
view
knotts
agents
already
saw
codefendant
take
possession
chloroform
therefore
beeper
accomplished
following
codefendant
without
aid
beeper
container
went
karo
house
agents
thereafter
learned
container
use
beeper
beeper
alone
told
container
taken
private
residences
storage
areas
transported
one
place
another
recognizes
concealment
personal
property
public
view
gives
rise
fourth
amendment
protection
writes
indiscriminate
monitoring
property
withdrawn
public
view
present
far
serious
threat
privacy
interests
home
escape
entirely
sort
fourth
amendment
oversight
ante
omitted
protection
limited
times
beeper
home
beeper
also
revealed
ether
moved
person
drives
public
thoroughfare
car
ether
concealed
trunk
exposing
public
view
fact
possession
ether
still
withdrawn
public
view
hence
location
entitled
constitutional
protection
footlocker
see
chadwick
even
knotted
scarf
entitles
owner
property
conceal
location
official
inspection
surely
placing
car
suffices
well
case
beeper
enabled
agents
discover
concealed
karo
house
point
thereafter
district
find
government
contend
location
exposed
public
view
agents
know
moved
hence
able
follow
route
without
aid
beeper
moreover
agents
employed
visual
surveillance
determine
moved
fear
detection
ante
beeper
enabled
learn
location
personal
property
exposed
public
view
invaded
interest
embraced
fourth
amendment
conception
search
search
began
moment
karo
brought
house
hence
concealed
public
view
general
matter
private
citizen
entitled
assume
fact
assume
possessions
infected
concealed
electronic
devices
concealment
items
personal
property
significantly
compromises
owner
interest
privacy
making
impossible
conceal
item
possession
location
government
despite
fact
fourth
amendment
protects
privacy
interest
location
personal
property
exposed
public
view
find
little
comfort
notion
invasion
privacy
occurs
listener
obtains
significant
information
use
device
ante
expectation
privacy
measured
standpoint
citizen
whose
privacy
stake
government
compromised
moment
invasion
occurs
bathtub
less
private
area
plumber
present
even
back
turned
agents
know
possession
property
entered
karo
house
moment
concealed
view
beeper
enabled
agents
learn
location
property
otherwise
concealed
public
view
infringed
privacy
interest
protected
fourth
amendment
iii
impact
beeper
surveillance
upon
interests
protected
fourth
amendment
leads
regard
perfectly
sensible
conclusion
absent
exigent
circumstances
government
agents
constitutional
duty
obtain
warrant
install
electronic
device
private
citizen
property
government
challenge
conclusion
warrant
purporting
authorize
installation
beeper
obtained
improperly
affirm
judgment
appeals
engage
de
novo
examination
record
effort
determine
whether
sufficient
information
independent
obtained
means
beeper
support
issuance
warrant
search
taos
house
question
raised
petition
certiorari
briefed
parties
surely
inquiry
made
first
instance
trial
parties
opportunity
argue
issue
accordingly
respectfully
dissent
seizure
issue
decided
knotts
knotts
challenge
installation
beeper
impact
possessory
rights
see
see
also
brennan
concurring
judgment
stevens
concurring
judgment
makes
difference
case
beeper
initially
attached
yet
delivered
respondents
delivery
effected
container
respondents
property
right
exclude
world
point
infringement
constitutionally
protected
interest
began
follows
possessory
interests
beeper
attached
standing
challenge
seizure
seizure
tainted
beeper
surveillance
case
see
smith
maryland
miller
dionisio
see
jacobsen
white
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
illinois
andreas
robbins
california
plurality
opinion
arkansas
sanders
chadwick
see
also
jacobsen
careful
note
beeper
revealed
anything
exposed
public
view
police
car
following
petschen
distance
throughout
journey
observed
leaving
public
highway
arriving
cabin
owned
respondent
drum
chloroform
still
car
fact
along
others
used
government
obtaining
search
warrant
led
discovery
clandestine
drug
laboratory
indication
beeper
used
way
reveal
information
movement
drum
within
cabin
way
visible
naked
eye
outside
cabin
see
also
ante
agree
response
ante
justice
position
take
homeowner
power
check
inside
container
presence
beeper
must
always
assume
risk
guests
carry
items
electronically
monitored
moreover
believe
electronic
surveillance
become
ever
permitted
become
pervasive
homeowners
must
expect
containers
brought
homes
infested
electronic
bugs
rawlings
kentucky
establishes
one
may
reasonable
expectation
privacy
contents
container
possession
another
search
case
occur
rawlings
home
see
hence
sheds
light
fourth
amendment
rights
homeowner
rights
defined
alderman
concluded
homeowner
may
object
police
conduct
reveals
gone
home
irrespective
whether
expectation
privacy
effects
searched
seized
police
make
unwarranted
search
house
seize
tangible
property
belonging
third
parties
even
transcript
conversation
homeowner
may
object
use
interest
seized
items
effects
protected
fourth
amendment
fruits
unauthorized
search
house
expressly
protected
fourth
amendment
omitted
seems
acknowledge
much
since
indicates
location
property
private
even
home
see
ante
even
assumed
beeper
infringes
privacy
interests
respect
location
items
concealed
within
home
search
concludes
began
containing
beeper
went
karo
home
end
left
home
agents
monitored
beeper
later
point
learned
longer
home
invasion
privacy
karo
home
continued
learning
longer
home
monitoring
told
agents
something
otherwise
known
karo
home
monitoring
beeper
constitutes
search
establishes
article
remains
premises
ante
less
search
establishes
article
left
premises
reason
holding
part
iv
opinion
violation
respondents
privacy
rights
left
second
warehouse
taint
later
monitoring
flawed
later
monitoring
necessarily
told
police
container
left
areas
considers
protected
therefore
violated
privacy
rights
follows
believe
justice
criteria
sufficient
accord
accused
standing
challenge
beeper
surveillance
person
power
prevent
visual
surveillance
container
hence
reasonable
expectation
location
property
remain
private
challenge
beeper
surveillance
container
ante
since
location
property
concealed
public
view
hence
private
concealed
items
persons
whose
privacy
invaded
property
concealed
place
reasonably
expect
location
remain
private
see
salvucci
mere
transfer
karo
containing
unmonitored
beeper
infringed
privacy
interest
ante
presumably
also
conclude
privacy
interest
infringed
entrance
blindfolded
plumber
follows
disagree
conclusion
monitoring
beeper
revealed
second
warehouse
constitute
search
ante
property
concealed
public
view
location
secret
hence
revealing
location
beeper
infringed
expectation
privacy
without
beeper
agents
never
found
warehouse
hence
never
set
visual
surveillance
locker
containing
ether
questions
presented
petition
certiorari
whether
warrantless
installation
beeper
inside
container
chemicals
consent
original
owner
violates
fourth
amendment
rights
suspect
drug
manufacturing
scheme
container
subsequently
transferred
whether
warrantless
monitoring
signals
beeper
installed
inside
container
chemicals
law
enforcement
authorities
reasonably
believe
used
manufacture
illegal
drugs
violates
fourth
amendment
monitoring
occurs
beeper
located
within
home
private
area
commercial
storage
locker
pet
cert