Petitioner MC'26 Argument

Search Pathways

This Court’s enduring commitment to protect Americans’ right to be free from warrantless searches is reflected in the establishment of two pathways. The common trespass law in Jones (Carpenter) is inapplicable because it applies solely to warrantless physical intrusions. The second pathway is the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test, which stems from J. Harlan in Katz and defines a search as when the government contravenes a REP that the individual demonstrates and society recognizes. Such a search without judicial oversight is per se unconstitutional.

Rawlings v. Kentucky (Ciraolo) Reasonable Measures

Turning to the first prong of the Katz test, the 4th A. has never required individuals to establish an absolute expectation of privacy against all government searches. Instead, as this Court held in Rawlings v. Kentucky (Ciraolo), an individual must simply take measures to protect what they seek to keep private. Mr. Bronner fulfills that requisite.

Katz Subj. EP

In Katz, this Court recognized that Mr. Katz simply closing the door was sufficient to demonstrate that he did not expect his conversation to be wiretapped. He did not need to speak in code, wear a face mask, or cloak the phone booth to show that a search was unwelcome. Similarly, Mr. Bronner’s choice of home is indicative enough of his expectation that the government would not search his curtilage without a warrant. An individual does not need to cover their home with a tarp or plant trees around it as a physical barrier to protect its sanctity.

Tuggle Subj. EP

The slat fence signaled an implicit prohibition of warrantless searches. In Tuggle, the Seventh Circuit found that the lack of a fence surrounding the property indicated an implicit permission for observations to take place. Mr. Bronner’s six-foot slat fence–as provided on R. 6– demonstrates the exact opposite. He had expected the government would not intrude upon the sanctity of his home without a warrant. He did not relinquish a sense of privacy simply because limited areas of his home were visible. Otherwise would require the American people to convert their homes into military bunkers to ensure privacy, and this is simply unreasonable.

Moore-Bush Subj. EP

The home's location complicated physical search efforts, demonstrating a heightened expectation of privacy. In Moore-Bush, the First Circuit acknowledged that the choice of neighborhood demonstrated a privacy expectation by complicating unwanted access. Similarly, R. 6 shows that Mr. Bronner’s home was located in an area prone to flooding and was elevated on four-foot-tall piers, features that obscured most of his property from view. These characteristics necessarily complicate warrantless, pervasive searches. And thus Mr. Bronner’s maintains a subjective expectation of privacy.

Kyllo In General Public Use

In recognizing that technology may alter society’s understanding of what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy, this Court established the In General Public Use doctrine in Kyllo v. United States. Under this doctrine, the government’s use of uncommon technology to collect information that otherwise would not have been known would contravene society’s understanding of a reasonable privacy expectation. Both elements were fulfilled today.

Ciraolo Technology Features

The Ring cameras used possess uncommon technological features that, when combined, surpass constitutional naked-eye observations. In California v. Ciraolo, this Court held constitutional photographs of a curtilage that were taken from a plane because it captured only what a general member of the public could discern with their eyes. Put simply, society would not object to ordinary observations. However, R.5 provides that the Ring cameras were equipped with motion tracking, a 10x optical zoom lens, infrared night vision, and motion-detection recording. These features allowed the government to monitor Mr. Bronner’s home continuously and in conditions beyond that of naked-eye observations and spared the federal agents the indignity of labor. The use of Ring cameras to search Mr. Bronner’s curtilage constitutes an egregious expansion of society’s understanding of reasonableness.

Carpenter Information Collected

The comprehensive nature of the information collected constitutes an egregious intrusion upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Carpenter v. United States, this Court acknowledged that collecting a detailed chronicle of a person’s life poses a much more concerning threat to privacy interests than ordinary, one-time observations. A wealth of information reveals much more about a person’s life than a temporary observation. In the case at bar, the Ring cameras compiled a collection of private details about Mr. Bronner’s life, such as his preferred meal habits, Girl Scout cookies, grocery stores, and visitors like masseuses and Geek Squad representatives (R. 7). The Ring cameras essentially transformed into emblems of government stalking, collecting a disturbing degree of detail that an ordinary observation could not have collected.

District Court Irony

Petitioner recognizes this Court’s emphasis in United States v. U.S. District Court, that the government must provide for the security of its people. However, it would be rather ironic if the government were simultaneously permitted to subvert the meaning of the Fourth Amendment by exploiting technology without a warrant.