Court Opinion

ID: 9585004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:54:57.072569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:16.841201
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, joins,
concurring. .
I concur in the court’s opinion. I write separately to reaffirm, with one modification, Part I.A of the panel opinion. The panel there concluded “that the same Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion standard that applies to Terry investigative stops should apply to the issuance of a purely investigative warrant to conduct a limited thermal imaging search from well outside the home.” United States v. Kat-taria, 503 F.3d 703, 705-07 (8th Cir.2007). Kattaria’s petition for rehearing en banc asserted that this conclusion conflicts with Supreme Court’s decision in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 121 S.Ct. 2038, L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), because in requir-a warrant to conduct aerial thermal imaging of a home, Kyllo implicitly adopted the fixed standard of probable cause that applies in criminal investiga- — a “fair probability that contraband *1179evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d (1983). The court declines to address issue.
The Fourth Amendment explicitly provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The issue is whether the probable cause required to obtain a warrant may ever vary based on the nature of the property being searched, the purpose of the search, and the extent of the physical intrusion into the home that the search will entail. This is an important issue of constitutional law. See, e.g., Albert W. Alschuler, Bright Line Fever and the Fourth Amendment, 45 U. Pitt. L.Rev. 227, 243-56 (1984); Joseph D. Gra-no, Probable Cause and Common Sense: A Reply to the Critics of Illinois v. Gates, 17 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 465, 501-06 (1984). The Supreme Court has spoken inconsistently on the issue in various contexts. In this context, I think it is properly viewed as an open issue.
Viewing the issue historically supports the panel’s position. The architects of the Fourth Amendment intended to prohibit general warrants and writs of assistance that had been used, in England, to punish political dissenters and, in the colonies, to collect unpopular taxes.2 See Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 311-12, 98 S.Ct. 1816, 56 L.Ed.2d 305 (1978). Like the leading common-law authority on search and seizure, they used the term probable cause to reflect the need for particularized suspicion to justify a search or seizure.3 “The issue was whether any evi-dentiary basis would be required to authorize searches and seizures, not what quantum of evidence would be necessary.” Alschuler, supra, at 254.
Early Supreme Court cases likewise construed the term “probable cause” in two 1799 statutes as meaning reasonable cause or suspicion. See Locke v. United States, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 339, 348, 3 L.Ed. 364 (1813) (Marshall, C.J.) (“ ‘probable cause,’ according to its usual acceptation .... imports a seizure made under circumstances which warrant suspicion.”); Stacey v. Emery 97 U.S. 642, 646, 24 L.Ed. 1035 (1878) (“If there was a reasonable cause of seizure, there was a probable cause. In many of [the] reported cases the two expressions are used as meaning the same thing.”). More recent decisions are not to the contrary. See, e.g., Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (“the substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of *1180guilt ... particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized”) (quotations omitted); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (probable cause and reasonable suspicion are “fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed”).
In Kyllo, overruling a majority of the circuit courts that had considered the issue, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires police investigators to obtain a warrant to conduct an aerial thermal imaging search of a private residence. But the Court did not discuss what showing of probable cause is constitutionally required to obtain this warrant. When I contrast Kyllo with the Court’s decision in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967), I infer that its silence on this issue was both intentional and significant.
In Camara, the Court overruled Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360, 79 S.Ct. 804, 3 L.Ed.2d 877 (1959), and held that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to enter a home for the purpose of inspecting for violations of municipal fire, health, and housing codes. But concluding that a warrant was required, the Court explained, “must be the beginning, not the end, of our inquiry.” 387 U.S. at 534, 87 S.Ct. 1727. The Court discussed at length how the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause standard should be applied in this context. Explaining that this standard can take into account the nature of the search that is being sought, the Court concluded there is “probable cause” to issue a warrant for area-wide inspections of homes “if reasonable legislative or administrative standards conducting an area inspection are satis-with respect to a particular dwelling.” at 538, 87 S.Ct. 1727 (quotation omit-This probable cause holding was followed in See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 87 S.Ct. 1741, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967), and in Marshall, 436 U.S. at 320-21, 98 S.Ct. 1816, though there were strong dissents in each of these cases.
At the same time, other decisions relaxed the traditional probable cause standard in limited contexts where the Court concluded that a warrant was not necessary and that the “special needs” of government, balanced against the nature of the privacy interests affected by the particular search or seizure, made a different standard reasonable under the circumstances. See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 340-11, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985); id. at 351, 105 S.Ct. 733 (Blackmun, J., concurring). For example, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972), held that the police may make brief and minimally intrusive investigative stops if they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. Despite broad pronouncements that reasonableness is the overarching Fourth Amendment principle, however, the Court has not applied the reasonable suspicion standard to criminal investigations that require a warrant, particularly for searches of the home.
In this environment, it is not surprising that the Court has characterized Ca-mara — which specifically required warrants issued under a modified probable cause standard — as an exception to traditional probable cause that is limited to “administrative search warrants.” Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 877-78, 107 S.Ct. 3164, 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987); see City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 37-38 and 54, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting) (2000); O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 723, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987). The distinction may be convenient, but it is *1181analytically inadequate. As the Court recognized in Camara, a building inspector’s non-consensual entry and search for violations of a myriad of health and safety codes breaks “the sanctity of the home,” and most housing codes “are enforced by criminal processes.” 387 U.S. at 530-31, 87 S.Ct. 1727. Recall that, for the Framers, use of writs of assistance to collect odious taxes was as much the problem addressed by the Fourth Amendment as use of general warrants to crush political dissent through criminal prosecutions. The Court in Camara required a warrant for this type of regulatory search to increase, not to relax, Fourth Amendment protections. The judicial warrant “provides the detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate” and “assures the individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search.” United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 9, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977), citing Camara, 387 U.S. at 532, 87 S.Ct. 1727.
Griffin held only that, under the Wisconsin regime at issue, probation authorities did not need a warrant or probable cause to search a probationer’s home. 483 U.S. at 875-76, 107 S.Ct. 3164; accord United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 121-22, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001). But in rejecting the dissenters’ contention that a judicial warrant should be required, the Court observed, “The Constitution prescribes ... that where the matter is of such a nature as to require a judicial warrant, it is also of such a nature as to require probable cause. Although we have arguably come to permit an exception to that prescription for administrative search warrants ... we have never done so for constitutionally mandated judicial warrants.” Id. at 877-78, 107 S.Ct. 3164. Though Griffin was a five-to-four decision, this statement is widely viewed as deciding, more broadly than the quoted passage requires, that probable cause to obtain a judicial warrant is a uniform, rigorous standard in all contexts. Perhaps so. That would explain the broad statement in Kyllo — another five-to-four decision — that “The Fourth Amendment’s protection of the home has never been tied to measurements of the quality or quantity of information obtained.” 533 U.S. at 37, 121 S.Ct. 2038. But that statement was made in a paragraph rebutting an entirely different argument by the government — that no warrant should be needed for a search that does not reveal “intimate details.”
I cannot predict how the Supreme Court would decide this difficult issue. But given the conflicting signals in the historical record and in the Court’s recent decisions, I do not read Griffin and Kyllo as categorically holding that the probable cause required to obtain a warrant for criminal investigative purposes can never be “context dependent,” that is, affected by the nature of the property to be searched, the manner of search, and the intrusiveness the search will entail. Certainly, there are strong reasons for applying a “single, familiar standard ... to guide police officers.” Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 213-14, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). But in my view, this case illustrates the problem with adopting that rigid approach.
Special Agent Perry wished to conduct thermal imaging as part of his investigation of the suspected indoor growing of marijuana. He applied for a warrant for that specific purpose, as Kyllo required. When the thermal imaging results confirmed the likely presence of an indoor grow operation, Perry applied for three warrants to conduct far more intrusive physical searches of Kattaria’s properties, submitting supporting affidavits that included the thermal imaging results from 1814 Malvern plus additional facts from his *1182on-going investigation. This was a constitutionally reasonable investigative sequence. The initial thermal imaging was far less intrusive than a physical search of the residence, and it provided important corroboration that criminal activity was likely being conducted before the homeowner or other resident was subjected to a full physical search. See, e.g., United States v. Pinson, 24 F.3d 1056, 1057 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1057, 115 S.Ct. 664, 130 L.Ed.2d 598 (1994) (suspicious thermal imaging results support showing of probable cause to conduct subsequent physical search). If the same quantum of evidence is required to obtain both kinds of warrants, law enforcement may have little incentive to incur the expense of a minimally intrusive thermal imaging search before conducting a highly intrusive physical search. Thus, from the perspectives of both effective law enforcement and the privacy rights of the homeowner, there is good reason to adjust the focus of the probable cause inquiry when law enforcement officials seek a warrant solely for the purpose of conducting investigative exteri- or thermal imaging.
On further reflection, I have concluded that the panel was unwise to borrow the concept of “reasonable suspicion” to reflect the quantum of probable cause that should be required in this situation. Reasonable suspicion is not focused to the task at hand, and it has never been applied to the warrant-issuing process. Rather, the question for the issuing magistrate (and reviewing courts) when considering an application like Agent Perry’s initial warrant affidavit should be whether there is probable cause to believe that search of specific property — the heat being emitted from a home — in a specific manner — by exterior thermal imaging — for purely investigative purposes will uncover evidence4 of on-going criminal activity. Utility records showing abnormally high electric power usage are strong evidence supporting such an application but, without more, are unlikely to establish probable cause because of the many innocent uses of electricity. Cf. United States v. Olson, 21 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 888, 115 S.Ct. 230, 130 L.Ed.2d 155 (1994). But the “something more” should simply be enough particularized suspicion to justify the minimal intrusion caused by the exterior thermal imaging of heat emissions, without regard to whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant to conduct a full physical search. Here, Agent Perry’s initial affidavit clearly meets that standard.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Kyllo, a panel of the Ninth Circuit concluded without extensive analysis that “the quantum of probable cause necessary to justify a thermal imaging search does not differ from that necessary to justify a physical search.” United States v. Huggins, 299 F.3d 1039, 1044 n. 5 (9th cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1079, 123 S.Ct. 681, 154 L.Ed.2d 579 (2002). If correct, that means judges will apply the flexible standard of Gates — a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,” 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317 — with “great deference” to the issuing judge’s resolution of *1183that issue, and with “close calls” resulting in no suppression of evidence if the police conduct meets the good faith standards of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), as the courts decided in Huggins and in United States v. Jarrell, 68 Fed.Appx. 622, 625-27 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1005, 124 S.Ct. 552, 157 L.Ed.2d 412 (2003). Our court takes that approach here and reaches, in my view, the correct result. But I think the vital interests protected by the Fourth Amendment would be better served by a more focused probable cause standard.

. Two leading English cases were Wilkes v. Wood, 98 Eng. Rep. 489 (C.P.1763), and Entick v. Carrington, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K.B. 1765), trespass actions attacking the Crown's use of general warrants to combat seditious libel. The courts held the warrants invalid for lack of oath or affirmation and particularized cause for suspicion without discussing the level of cause required to justify a warrant search. See Jacob W. Landynski, Search and Seizure and the Supreme Court 28-30 (1966). The writ of assistance was valid for the life of the sovereign and allowed a constable to seize "prohibited or uncustomed goods” by breaking and entering houses, shops, and other buildings. In a well publicized 1761 case, James a “Custom house officers [to] enter our houses when they please ... bare suspicion without oath is sufficient....” Again, the quantum of cause that should be required was not addressed. See Telford Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpretation 24-41 (1969).

. Noted seventeenth-century jurist Matthew Hale “used the terms 'suspicion,' 'probable cause of suspicion,' and ‘reasonable cause of suspicion’ interchangeably,” demanding only a judicial finding of “some basis for suspecting a particular individual.” Grano, supra note 1, at 480-81; see Landynski, supra note 1, at 27 n. 34; Alschuler, supra, at 253.

. It may be worth noting that, prior to the decision in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 307, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967), a warrant could not be issued to search for "mere evidence.” See generally Taylor, supra note 1, at 50-64. When the Court subsequently upheld a warrant to search a newspaper's files for evidence identifying violent demonstrators, Justice Stevens in dissent blamed the "novel problem” of warrants to seize papers from innocent third parties on Hayden s "profound change in Fourth Amendment law.” Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 577, 98 S.Ct. 1970, 56 L.Ed.2d 525 (1978).