United States v. Karo
468 U.S. 705 (1984)
Author: DK

Background:  In U.S. v. Knotts, the Court held that the monitoring of a beeper did not violate the 4^th Amendment when it revealed no information that could not have been obtained through visual surveillance.

Facts:  DEA agents installed a beeper equipment in a can with the consent of the owner which was later sold to respondents with 50 gallons of ether.  The can moved around a lot and ultimately, the DEA agents used to beeper equipment to determine that the can was inside of one of respondents home and obtained a search warrant and arrested the respondents.

Issues: Did the installation of the beeper in the container constitute search and seizure?  Was the 4^th Amendment violated when the beeper revealed information that could not have been obtained through visual surveillance?

Holding: No, Yes

Rationale: The officers installed the beeper with the consent of the owner and the respondents did not have a reasonable expectation in the can when the beeper was installed.  Therefore, no search and seizure took place by the installation of the beeper. As far as the second issue is concerned, the police determined that the can was still sitting in one of the homes through the beeper.  Therefore, the police, through the beeper, observed what was happening inside the home.  This was violation of the 4^th Amendment.  According to the Court, “The monitoring of an electronic device such as a beeper is, of course, less intrusive than a full-scale search, but it does reveal a critical fact about the interior of the premises that the Government is extremely interested in knowing and that it could not have otherwise obtained without a warrant.”  But still the search and seizure was valid because the warrant was supported by probable cause based on visual evidence and evidence that could have been obtained through visual surveillance.