| United States v. Knotts | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued December 6, 1982 Decided March 2, 1983 |
||||||
| Full case name | United States v. Knotts | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| A radio transmitter may be used to aid the police in their physical pursuit of a suspect | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Powell, and O'Connor | |||||
| Concurrence | Brennan, joined by Marshall | |||||
| Concurrence | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Stevens | |||||
| Concurrence | Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | ||||||
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.
Contents |
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.
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 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.