The holding in Kyllo is based on the search being of a home, where the Fourth Amendment protections are strongest (“At the very core” of the Fourth Amendment
“stands the right of a man to retreat into his own
home and there be free from unreasonable governmental
intrusion.” Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511
(1961). ) and the holding is narrow: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not
in general public use, to explore details of the home that
would previously have been unknowable without physical
intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumptively
unreasonable without a warrant.
I'd expect NYC to say "These vans are strictly for anti-terrorism purposes and if we see a bomb then you're welcome to cite the exclusionary rule from the safety of a non-blown-up courthouse", though that viewpoint will not command a whole lot of support on HN. I think it's probably a loser at the current Supreme Court on a drug case and would get a 9-0 with Scalia writing a florid distinguishing opinion from Kyllo if a terrorism case somehow made it all the way to the Supreme Court. (Amateur analysis here; IANAL.)
>stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion
Sort of a funny concept in the day and age that you get no-knock raids where cops shoot your pets with fully automatic assault rifles based off anonymous telephone calls.
Nah, clearly the definition of "unreasonable" has been altered quite a bit over the last few decades. No knock raids generally have a legal warrant, given by a judge and everything, allowing them to do so.
Instead of a bomb how about a warning that these vans exist? You could have a bunch of nerds leaving arduinos in Ubers around NYC. Have the arduinos measuring radiation and phoning home with any locations that are above average. At the very least it would be an interesting map to look at
I'd expect NYC to say "These vans are strictly for anti-terrorism purposes and if we see a bomb then you're welcome to cite the exclusionary rule from the safety of a non-blown-up courthouse", though that viewpoint will not command a whole lot of support on HN. I think it's probably a loser at the current Supreme Court on a drug case and would get a 9-0 with Scalia writing a florid distinguishing opinion from Kyllo if a terrorism case somehow made it all the way to the Supreme Court. (Amateur analysis here; IANAL.)