Archive for April, 2016

Federal Political Scandals

Posted by Activist Action in Uncategorized on April 28, 2016

  1. Lois Lerner, head of the IRS Office of Exempt Organizations, stated she had not done anything wrong and then took the Fifthbefore the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.[12] She retired in 2013 after an internal investigation found that she neglected her duties and was going to call for her ouster.[13]
  2. Joseph H. Grant, commissioner of the IRS Tax-exempt and Government entities division, resigned on May 16, 2013.[14]

LegislativeEdit

  • Dennis Hastert (R-IL) pled guilty to charges that he violated banking rules and lied to the FBI in a scheme to pay $3.5 million in hush money to conceal sexual misconduct with an under age boy from his days as a high school wrestling coach, from 1965 to 1981.(2015)[21][22][23]
  • Aaron Schock (R-IL) resigned from office after evidence surfaced that he used campaign funds for travel, redecorated his office with taxpayer funds to resemble the sets of the Downton Abbey TV series, and otherwise spent campaign and/or taxpayer money on other questionable personal uses.(2015)[24]
    • Schock’s senior adviser Benjamin Cole had resigned earlier after he allegedly condemned “hood rats” and “black miscreants” in internet posts. Schock’s office stated, “I am extremely disappointed by the inexcusable and offensive online comments made by a member of my staff.”[25]
  • Brett O’Donnell Communications Director for Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) plead guilty to lying to investigators from the House Office of Congressional Ethics about working for Rodgers while being paid with campaign money, thus becoming the first person ever to be convicted of lying to the House OCE.[26]
  • Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) resigned his Congressional seat. Four of his staff were convicted by the state of Michigan of falsifying signatures on McCotter’s reelection petitions for the 2012 elections. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) blamed McCotter for running a slipshod, leaderless operation. “The congressman has resigned in disgrace”, Schuette said, though McCotter was not charged.[27]
  1. Paul Seewald worked for McCotter as his District Director of the Michigan’s 11th congressional district. He pled guilty to nine counts of falsely signing a nominating petition as circulator. He was sentenced to two years’ probation and 100 hours of community service, and ordered to pay court costs and fees.[28]
  2. Don Yowchuang worked for McCotter as Deputy District Director of the Michigan 11th Congressional District. He pleaded guilty to ten counts of forgery and six counts of falsely signing a nominating petition and was sentenced to three years of probation, 200 hours of community service, court costs and fees.[29]
  3. Mary M. Turnbull was McCotter’s Representative to the Michigan 11th Congressional District. She was convicted of conspiring to commit a legal act in an illegal manner and falsely signing a nominating petition. She was sentenced to two years of probation, a day in jail, and 200 hours of community service. She was also ordered to pay a $1,440 fine. In addition, she is forbidden from any participation in elections or the political process.[30]
  4. Lorianne O’Brady worked as a scheduler for McCotter in the Michigan 11th Congressional District. She pleaded no contest to charges that she falsely claimed to have legally collected signatures to get McCotter on the ballot when she actually had not. She was sentenced to 20 days in jail and a work program plus $2,625 in fines and court costs.[31]
  • Senator Mitch McConnell‘s (R-KY) campaign manager Jesse Benton (R) resigned when details of a bribery scandal from Ron Paul‘s 2012 presidential campaign came to light. (2014).[32]
  • David Rivera (R-FL) was indicted as a co-conspirator with Campaign Manager Ana Alliegro who pleaded guilty to violation of US campaign laws in an $81,000 campaign-finance scheme to prop up a little-known Democratic candidate who used the illegal cash to trash Rivera’s rival in the 2012 Democratic primary.[33][34]
  • Rick Renzi (R-AZ) on June 12, 2013, was found guilty of 17 counts against him, which included wire fraud, conspiracy, extortion, racketeering, money laundering, and making false statements to insurance regulators.[35]
  • Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) was arrested on December 23, 2012, and later pleaded guilty to drinking and driving in a Virginia court. The court fined him 250 dollars. He was sentenced to 180 days in prison, but served no time.[36][37][38]
  • Trey Radel (R-FL) was arrested on October 29, 2013, in Washington, D.C. for possession of cocaine after purchasing the drug from an undercover law enforcement officer. As a first-time offender, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor in a Washington, D.C. court, and was sentenced to one year probation and fined $250. Radel took a leave of absence from office to undergo substance abuse treatment following his conviction. Following treatment, he initially returned to office with the intent of finishing his term, but eventually resigned on January 27, 2014.[39][40][41]
  • Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-IL) pled guilty to one felony count of fraud for using $750,000 of campaign money to buy personal items such as stuffed animals, elk heads and fur capes.[42]
  • Laura Richardson (D-CA) was found guilty on seven counts of violating US House rules by improperly using her staff to campaign for her, destroying the evidence and tampering with witness testimony. The House Ethics Committee ordered Richardson to pay a fine of $10,000. (2012)[43][44]
  • John Ensign (R-NV) resigned his Senate seat on May 3, 2011, just before the Senate Ethics Committee could examine possible fiscal violations in connection with his extramarital affair with Cynthia Hampton. (2011)[45][46][47][48] (see Federal sex scandals) In May 2012, aide Doug Hampton (R) in what became the John Ensign scandal reached a plea deal with prosecutors, the details of which have not yet been released.[49]
  • Michael Grimm (R-NY) pleaded guilty to tax fraud on December 23, 2014, and was sentenced to eight months in federal prison.[50]
  • Ron Paul (R-TX) Deputy Campaign ManagerDimitri Kesari was convicted of causing false records concerning charges of buying an Iowa State Senator’s endorsement during the 2012 presidential campaign.(2012)[51]

Judicial BranchEdit

  • G. Thomas Porteous Federal Judge for Eastern Louisiana was unanimously impeached by the US House of Representatives on charges of bribery and perjury in March 2010. He was convicted by the US Senate and removed from office. He had been appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton. (2010)[52][53]
  • Samuel B. Kent Federal District Judge ofGalveston, Texas, was sentenced to 33 months in prison for lying about sexually harassing two female employees. He had been appointed to office by RepublicanGeorge H. W. Bush in 1990. (2009)[54][55]
  • Jack T. Camp Senior Federal U.S. District Court Judge was appointed by RepublicanRonald Reagan and again by George W. Bush, was arrested in an undercover drug bust while trying to purchase cocaine from an FBI agent. Judge Camp resigned after pleading guilty to three criminal charges. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail, 400 community service hours and fined.[56][57][58]

2001–2009 George W. Bush AdministrationEdit

Executive BranchEdit

  1. Maj. Gen. George Weightman, was fired for failures linked to the scandal.(2007) [65]
  2. Maj. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley resigned for failures linked to the scandal.[66]
  • Felipe Sixto was appointed by President George W. Bush to be his Special Assistant for Intergovernmental Affairs as well as Duty Director at the Office of Public Liaison. He resigned a few weeks later on March 20, 2008 because of his misuse of grant money from the U.S. Agency for International Development when he had worked for theCenter for a Free Cuba.[67] He was sentenced to 30 months in prison for stealing almost $600,000 for personal use.[68]
  • Timothy Goeglein, Special Assistant to President Bush resigned when it was discovered that more than 20 of his columns had been plagiarized from an Indiana newspaper. (2008)[69]
  • Scott Bloch was appointed by President George W. Bush to head the United States Office of Special Counsel. On April 27, 2010 Bloch pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of Congress for “willfully and unlawfully withholding pertinent information from a House committee investigating his decision to have several government computers wiped ….”[70] On February 2, Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson ruled that Bloch faces a mandatory sentence of at least one month in prison.[71][72]
  • Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice PresidentDick Cheney (R). ‘Scooter’ was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in thePlame Affair on March 6, 2007. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000. The sentence was commuted byGeorge W. Bush on July 1, 2007. The felony remains on Libby’s record, though the jail time and fine were commuted.[73][74]
  • Alphonso Jackson The Secretary ofHousing and Urban Development resigned while under investigation by the Justice Department for alleged cronyism and favoritism [75]
  • Karl Rove Senior Adviser to PresidentGeorge W. Bush was investigated by the Office of Special Counsel for “improper political influence over government decision-making”, as well as for his involvement in several other scandals such as Lawyergate,Bush White House e-mail controversy andPlame affair. He resigned in April 2007. (SeeKarl Rove in the George W. Bush administration)[76]
  • Richard J. Griffin Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security appointed byGeorge W. Bush who made key decisions regarding the department’s oversight of private security contractor Blackwater USA, resigned in November 2007, after a critical review by the House Oversight Committee found that his office had failed to adequately supervise private contractors during theBlackwater Baghdad shootings protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq.[77]
  • Howard Krongard, Republican contributor[78] was appointed Inspector General of the US State Department by President George W. Bush in 2005.[79] After he was accused by the House Oversight Committee of improperly interfering with investigations into private security contractor Blackwater USA, concerning the Blackwater Baghdad shootings. Krongard resigned in December 2007.[80][81]
  • “Lawyergate“[82] Or the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy refers to President Bush firing, without explanation, eleven Republican federal prosecutors whom he himself had appointed. It is alleged they were fired for prosecuting Republicans and notprosecuting Democrats.[83][84] When Congressional hearings were called, a number of senior Justice Departmentofficials cited executive privilege and refused to testify under oath and instead resigned, including:
  1. Alberto Gonzales Attorney General of the United States[85]
  2. Karl Rove Advisor to President Bush[86]
  3. Harriet Miers Legal Counsel to President Bush, was found in Contempt of Congress[87]
  4. Michael A. Battle Director of Executive Office of US Attorneys in the Justice Department.[88]
  5. Bradley Schlozman Director of Executive Office of US Attorneys who replaced Battle[89]
  6. Michael Elston Chief of Staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty[90]
  7. Paul McNulty Deputy Attorney General to William Mercer[91]
  8. William W. Mercer Associate Attorney General to Alberto Gonzales[92]
  9. Kyle Sampson Chief of Staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales[88]
  10. Monica Goodling Liaison between President Bush and the Justice Department[93]
  11. Joshua Bolten Deputy Chief of Staff to President Bush was found in Contempt of Congress[87]
  12. Sara M. Taylor Aide to Presidential Advisor Karl Rove[94]
  • Bush White House e-mail controversy – During the Lawyergate investigation it was discovered that the Bush administration used Republican National Committee (RNC) web servers for millions of emails which were then destroyed, lost or deleted in possible violation of the Presidential Records Act and the Hatch Act. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove,Andrew Card, Sara Taylor and Scott Jenningsall used RNC webservers for the majority of their emails. Of 88 officials investigated, 51 showed no emails at all.[95] As many as 5 million e-mails requested by Congressional investigators were therefore unavailable, lost, or deleted.[96]
  • Lurita Alexis Doan Resigned as head of theGeneral Services Administration. She was under scrutiny for conflict of interest and violations of the Hatch Act.[97] Among other things she asked GSA employees how they could “help Republican candidates”.[98]
  • John Korsmo chairman of the Federal Housing Finance Board pled guilty to lying to congress and sentenced to 18 months of unsupervised probation and fined $5,000. (2005)[99]
  • Darleen A. Druyun was Principal Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force nominated byGeorge W. Bush.[100] She pled guilty to inflating the price of contracts to favor her future employer, Boeing. In October 2004, she was sentenced to nine months in jail for corruption, fined $5,000, given three years of supervised release and 150 hours of community service. She began her prison term on January 5, 2005.[101] CBS News called it “the biggest Pentagon scandal in 20 years” and said that she pleaded guilty to a felony.[102]
  • Philip Cooney Bush appointee to chair theCouncil on Environmental Quality was accused of editing government climate reports to emphasize doubts about global warming.[103] Two days later, Cooney announced his resignation[104] and later conceded his role in altering reports. Stating “My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his administration,” .[105][106]
  • Jack Abramoff Scandal in which the prominent lobbyist with close ties to Republican administration officials and legislators offered bribes as part of his lobbying efforts. Abramoff was sentenced to 4 years in prison.[107][108] See Legislative scandals.
  1. Tom DeLay (R-TX) The House Majority Leader was reprimanded twice by the House Ethics Committee and his aides indicted (2004–2005); eventually DeLay himself was investigated in October 2005 in connection with the Abramoff scandal, but not indicted. DeLay resigned from the House 9 June 2006.[109] DeLay was found to have illegally channeled funds fromAmericans for a Republican Majority to Republican state legislator campaigns. He was convicted of two counts of money laundering and conspiracy in 2010.[110]
  2. David Safavian GSA (General Services Administration) Chief of Staff,[111] found guilty of blocking justice and lying,[112] and sentenced to 18 months[113]
  3. Roger Stillwell Staff in the Department of the Interior under President George W. Bush (R). Pleaded guilty and received two years suspended sentence.[114]
  4. Susan B. Ralston Special Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to Karl Rove, resigned October 6, 2006, after it became known that she accepted gifts and passed information to her former boss Jack Abramoff.[115]
  5. J. Steven Griles former Deputy to theSecretary of the Interior pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and was sentenced to 10 months.[116]
  6. Italia Federici staff to the Secretary of the Interior, and President of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, pled guilty to tax evasion and obstruction of justice. She was sentenced to four years probation.[117][118][119]
  7. Jared Carpenter Vice-President of theCouncil of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, was discovered during the Abramoff investigation and pled guilty to income tax evasion. He got 45 days, plus 4 years probation.[120]
  8. Mark Zachares staff in the Department of Labor, bribed by Abramoff, guilty of conspiracy to defraud.[108]
  9. Robert E. Coughlin Deputy Chief of Staff, Criminal Division of the Justice Department pleaded guilty to conflict of interest after accepting bribes from Jack Abramoff. (2008)[121]
  1. suspend sections of the ABM Treatywithout informing Congress[151]
  2. bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allowing warrantless wiretapping of US Citizens within the United States by the National Security Agency.[151]
  3. state that the First Amendment andFourth Amendments and the Takings Clause do not apply to the president in time of war as defined in the USA PATRIOT Act[151]
  4. allow Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (torture) because provisions of the War Crimes Act, the Third Geneva Convention, and the Torture convention do not apply.[151]
Many of his memos have since been repudiated and reversed.[151][152] Later review by the Justice Department reported that Yoo and Jay Bybee used “poor judgement” in the memos, but no charges were filed.[153]
  • Carl Truscott Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms appointed in 2004 but was soon under investigation for his management style and allegations of lavish spending and misuse of resources, including requiring a large number of agents as personal security, allocating hundreds of thousands of dollars of expensive upgrades to the ATF HQ building, adding a new garage to his house, detailing 20 agents to help with his nephew’s high school project and other examples of poor financial judgment. Truscott resigned as the ATF Director on August 4, 2006.[154][155]

Legislative BranchEdit

  • James W. Treffinger (R-NJ) the US senatorial candidate pled guilty in 2003 to corruption and fraud as Chief Executive of Essex County and ordered to pay $30,000 in restitution and serve 13 months in jail.[156]
  • Ted Stevens Senator (R-AK) was convicted of seven counts of bribery and tax evasion October 27, 2008. He then lost re-election. Newly appointed US Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed the charges “in the interest of justice” stating that the Justice Department had illegally withheld evidence from defense counsel.[157]
  • Charles Rangel (D-NY) failed to report $75,000 income from the rental of his villa in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic and was forced to pay $11,000 in back taxes.(September 2008)[158]
  • Rick Renzi (R-AZ) Announced he would not seek another term.[159]* He was later sentenced to three years in prison after conviction on federal corruption charges of extortion, bribery, insurance fraud, money laundering and racketeering related to a 2005 money-laundering scheme that netted the Flagstaff Republican more than $700,000. (2005) [160]
  • Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned on September 29, 2006 after sending sexually explicit messages to former Congressional pages.[161]
  • Frank Ballance (D-NC) admitted to a federal charge of money laundering and mail fraud in October 2005 and sentenced to 4 years in prison.[162]
  • Tom DeLay (R-TX) and House Majority Leader served from 1985 to 2006 when he resigned his position to undergo trial for conspiring to launder corporate money into political donations and money laundering during the 2002 elections. On November 24, 2010, DeLay was found guilty[163] and was sentenced to three years in prison and 10 years’ probation respectively.[164] On September 19, 2013, the conviction was overturned.[165]
  • Jack Abramoff Scandal, (R) lobbyist found guilty of conspiracy, tax evasion and corruption of public officials in three different courts in a wide ranging investigation. Currently serving 70 months and fined $24.7 million.[166] See Scandals, Executive Branch. The following were also implicated:
  1. Tom DeLay (R-TX) The House Majority Leader was reprimanded twice by the House Ethics Committee and his aides indicted (2004–2005); eventually DeLay himself was investigated in October 2005 in connection with the Abramoff scandal, but not indicted. DeLay resigned from the House 9 June 2006.[109] DeLay was found to have illegally channeled funds fromAmericans for a Republican Majority to Republican state legislator campaigns. He was convicted of two counts of money laundering and conspiracy in 2010.[110]
  2. Michael Scanlon (R) former staff to Tom DeLay: working for Abramoff, pled guilty to bribery.[107][108]
  3. Tony Rudy (R) former staff to Tom DeLay, pleaded guilty to conspiracy.[108]
  4. James W. Ellis executive director of Tom DeLay’s political action committee,Americans for a Republican Majority(ARMPAC), was indicted by Texas for money laundering.[167]
  5. John Colyandro executive director of Tom DeLay’s political action committee,Texans for a Republican Majority(TRMPAC), was indicted by Texas for money laundering[167]
  6. Bob Ney (R-OH) pleaded guilty to conspiracy and making false statements as a result of his receiving trips from Abramoff in exchange for legislative favors. Ney received 30 months in prison.[108][168]
  7. William Heaton (R) Chief of Staff for Bob Ney pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud[169] admitting to conspiring with Ney, Jack Abramoff and others to accept vacations, meals, tickets, and contributions to Ney’s campaign in exchange for Ney benefitting Abramoff’s clients.(2006)[170]
  8. Neil Volz former staff to Robert Ney, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in 2006 charges stemming from his work for Bob Ney. In 2007 he was sentenced to two years probation, 100 hours community service, and a fine of $2,000.[171]
  9. William Heaton, former chief of staff forBob Ney (R), pleaded guilty to a federal conspiracy charge involving a golf trip to Scotland, expensive meals, and tickets to sporting events between 2002 and 2004 as payoffs for helping Abramoff’s clients.[172]
  10. John Albaugh, former chief of staff toErnest Istook (R-OK), pled guilty to accepting bribes connected to the Federal Highway Bill. Istook was not charged. (2008)[173]
  11. James Hirni, former staff to Tim Hutchinson (R-AR), was charged with wire fraud for giving a staffer for Don Young (R) of Alaska a bribe in exchange for amendments to the Federal Highway Bill. (2008)[174]
  12. Kevin A. Ring (R) former staff to John Doolittle (R-CA) was convicted of five charges of corruption.[175][176]
  • John Doolittle (R-CA) both he and his wife were under investigation (January 2008). Under this cloud, Doolittle decided not to run for re-election in November 2008. The Justice Department announced in June 2010 they had terminated the investigation and found no wrongdoing.[177]
  • Randy Cunningham (R-CA) pleaded guilty on November 28, 2005, to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion in what came to be called the Cunningham scandal. Sentenced to over eight years.[178]
  • Tan Nguyen (R-CA) congressional candidate for the 47th District was convicted of voter intimidation. He lost the election and was sentenced to one year in prison and six months in a halfway house. (2006)[179]
  • Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) struck a U.S. Capitol Police officer in the chest after he attempted to stop her from going around a security checkpoint. McKinney apologized on the floor of the House and no charges were filed (March 29, 2006)[180]
  • William J. Jefferson (D-LA) in August 2005 the FBI seized $90,000 in cash from Jefferson’s home freezer. He was re-elected anyway, but lost in 2008. Jefferson was convicted of 11 counts of bribery and sentenced to 13 years on November 13, 2009, and his chief of staff Brett Pfeffer was sentenced to 84 months in a related case.[181][182]
  • Bill Janklow (R-SD) convicted of second-degree manslaughter for running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist. Resigned from the House and given 100 days in the county jail and three years (2003)[183]
  • Robert Torricelli Senator (D-NJ) after 14 years in the House and one term in the Senate, Torricelli declined to run again when accused of taking illegal contributions from Korean businessman David Chang. (2002)[184]
  • Jim Traficant (D-OH) found guilty on 10 felony counts of financial corruption, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison and expelled from the House (2002)[185]

1993–2001 Bill Clinton AdministrationEdit

Executive BranchEdit

  • Bill Clinton, President (D), impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying under oath about consensual sexual relations with a member of his staff Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate and remained in office for the rest of his term. Clinton subsequently was cited for contempt of courtand agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license (1998).[186] On October 1, 2001, Clinton was barred from practicing law before the Supreme Court of the United States (2001)[187]
  • Ronald Blackley, Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy, was sentenced to 27 months for perjury. Secretary Espy was found innocent on all counts.[188]

Legislative BranchEdit

  • Newt Gingrich (R-GA), the Speaker of theUS House of Representatives, was charged $300,000 in sanctions by the majority republican House ethics committee for an unethical book deal [189] leading to his eventual resignation from office. (1997)[190]
  • Barbara-Rose Collins (D-MI) found to have committed 11 violations of law and house rules stemming from use of campaign funds for personal use.[191]
  • Wes Cooley (R-OR), Cooley was convicted of having lied on the 1994 voter information pamphlet about his service in the Army. He was fined and sentenced to two years probation (1997)[192]
  • Austin Murphy (D-PA) convicted of engaging in voter fraud for filling out absentee ballots for members of a nursing home.[193]
  • Nicholas Mavroules (D-MA) pleaded guilty to bribery charges.[194]
  • Bob Packwood (R-OR), 19 women accused him of sexual misconduct. He fought the allegations, but eventually, the US Senate Ethics Committee found him guilty of a “pattern of abuse of his position of power and authority” and recommended that he be expelled from the Senate. He resigned on Sept. 7, 1995.[195]
  • Lawrence J. Smith (D-FL) On August 3, 1993, Congressman Smith pled guilty to one count of tax evasion and one count of filing false campaign reports. He was sentenced to three months in prison.[196]
  • House banking scandal[197] The House of Representatives Bank found that 450 members had overdrawn their checking accounts, but had not been penalized. Six were convicted of charges, most only tangentially related to the House Bank itself. Twenty two more of the most prolific over-drafters were singled out by the House Ethics Committee. (1992)[198]
  1. Buzz Lukens (R-OH) convicted of bribery and conspiracy.[199]
  2. Carl C. Perkins (D-KY) pled guilty to a check kiting scheme involving several financial institutions (including the House Bank).[199]
  3. Carroll Hubbard (D-KY)convicted of illegally funneling money to his wife’s 1992 campaign to succeed him in congress.[200]
  4. Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) was charged with seven felonies, but pleaded guilty only to a misdemeanor campaign finance charge not related to the House Bank.[199]
  5. Walter Fauntroy (D-DC) convicted of filing false disclosure forms in order to hide unauthorized income.[199]
  6. Jack Russ House Sergeant-at-Arms, convicted of three counts.[199]
  1. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) Rostenkowski was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison, in 1995.[202]
  2. Joe Kolter (D-PA) Convicted of one count of conspiracy[203] and sentenced to 6 months in prison.[204]
  3. Robert V. Rota Postmaster, convicted of one count of conspiracy and two counts of embezzlement.[201]
  • Jay Kim (R-CA) accepted $250,000 in illegal 1992 campaign contributions and was sentenced to two months house arrest (1992)[205]

Leave a comment

Danny Lee Kyollo vs. United States

Posted by Activist Action in Court Cases on April 18, 2016

 

KYLLO V. UNITED STATES (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
190 F.3d 1041, reversed and remanded.
Syllabus Opinion
[ Scalia ]		 Dissent
[ Stevens ]
HTML version
PDF version		 HTML version
PDF version		 HTML version
PDF version

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports.Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 99—8508

DANNY LEE KYLLO, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[June 11, 2001]

    Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This case presents the question whether the use of a thermal-imaging device aimed at a private home from a public street to detect relative amounts of heat within the home constitutes a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

I

    In 1991 Agent William Elliott of the United States Department of the Interior came to suspect that marijuana was being grown in the home belonging to petitioner Danny Kyllo, part of a triplex on Rhododendron Drive in Florence, Oregon. Indoor marijuana growth typically requires high-intensity lamps. In order to determine whether an amount of heat was emanating from petitioner’s home consistent with the use of such lamps, at 3:20 a.m. on January 16, 1992, Agent Elliott and Dan Haas used an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imager to scan the triplex. Thermal imagers detect infrared radiation, which virtually all objects emit but which is not visible to the naked eye. The imager converts radiation into images based on relative warmth–black is cool, white is hot, shades of gray connote relative differences; in that respect, it operates somewhat like a video camera showing heat images. The scan of Kyllo’s home took only a few minutes and was performed from the passenger seat of Agent Elliott’s vehicle across the street from the front of the house and also from the street in back of the house. The scan showed that the roof over the garage and a side wall of petitioner’s home were relatively hot compared to the rest of the home and substantially warmer than neighboring homes in the triplex. Agent Elliott concluded that petitioner was using halide lights to grow marijuana in his house, which indeed he was. Based on tips from informants, utility bills, and the thermal imaging, a Federal Magistrate Judge issued a warrant authorizing a search of petitioner’s home, and the agents found an indoor growing operation involving more than 100 plants. Petitioner was indicted on one count of manufacturing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea.

    The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing regarding the intrusiveness of thermal imaging. On remand the District Court found that the Agema 210 “is a non-intrusive device which emits no rays or beams and shows a crude visual image of the heat being radiated from the outside of the house”; it “did not show any people or activity within the walls of the structure”; “[t]he device used cannot penetrate walls or windows to reveal conversations or human activities”; and “[n]o intimate details of the home were observed.” Supp. App. to Pet. for Cert. 39—40. Based on these findings, the District Court upheld the validity of the warrant that relied in part upon the thermal imaging, and reaffirmed its denial of the motion to suppress. A divided Court of Appeals initially reversed, 140 F.3d 1249 (1998), but that opinion was withdrawn and the panel (after a change in composition) affirmed, 190 F.3d 1041 (1999), with Judge Noonan dissenting. The court held that petitioner had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home, id., at 1046, and even if he had, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the imager “did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo’s life,” only “amorphous ‘hot spots’ on the roof and exterior wall,” id., at 1047. We granted certiorari. 530 U.S. 1305(2000).

II

    The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” “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). With few exceptions, the question whether a warrantless search of a home is reasonable and hence constitutional must be answered no. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181 (1990); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980).

    On the other hand, the antecedent question of whether or not a Fourth Amendment “search” has occurred is not so simple under our precedent. The permissibility of ordinary visual surveillance of a home used to be clear because, well into the 20th century, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to common-law trespass. See, e.g.,Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 134—136 (1942); Olmstead v.United States, 277 U.S. 438,
464—466 (1928). Cf. Silverman v.United States, supra, at 510—512 (technical trespass not necessary forFourth Amendment violation; it suffices if there is “actual intrusion into a constitutionally protected area”). Visual surveillance was unquestionably lawful because “ ‘the eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of a trespass.’ ” Boyd v.United States, 116 U.S. 616, 628 (1886) (quoting Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K. B. 1765)). We have since decoupled violation of a person’sFourth Amendment rights from trespassory violation of his property, see Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978), but the lawfulness of warrantless visual surveillance of a home has still been preserved. As we observed in California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213 (1986), “[t]he Fourth Amendment protection of the home has never been extended to require law enforcement officers to shield their eyes when passing by a home on public thoroughfares.”

    One might think that the new validating rationale would be that examining the portion of a house that is in plain public view, while it is a “search”1 despite the absence of trespass, is not an “unreasonable” one under the Fourth Amendment. See Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 104 (1998) (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment). But in fact we have held that visual observation is no “search” at all–perhaps in order to preserve somewhat more intact our doctrine that warrantless searches are presumptively unconstitutional. See Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 234—235, 239 (1986). In assessing when a search is not a search, we have applied somewhat in reverse the principle first enunciated in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Katzinvolved eavesdropping by means of an electronic listening device placed on the outside of a telephone booth–a location not within the catalog (“persons, houses, papers, and effects”) that the Fourth Amendmentprotects against unreasonable searches. We held that the Fourth Amendment nonetheless protected Katz from the warrantless eavesdropping because he “justifiably relied” upon the privacy of the telephone booth. Id., at 353. As Justice Harlan’s oft-quoted concurrence described it, a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable. See id., at 361. We have subsequently applied this principle to hold that a Fourth Amendment search does not occur–even when the explicitly protected location of a house is concerned–unless “the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search,” and “society [is] willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.”Ciraolo, supra, at 211. We have applied this test in holding that it is not a search for the police to use a pen register at the phone company to determine what numbers were dialed in a private home, Smith v.Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743—744 (1979), and we have applied the test on two different occasions in holding that aerial surveillance of private homes and surrounding areas does not constitute a search,Ciraolo, supra; Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).

    The present case involves officers on a public street engaged in more than naked-eye surveillance of a home. We have previously reserved judgment as to how much technological enhancement of ordinary perception from such a vantage point, if any, is too much. While we upheld enhanced aerial photography of an industrial complex in Dow Chemical, we noted that we found “it important that this is not an area immediately adjacent to a private home, where privacy expectations are most heightened,” 476 U.S., at 237, n. 4 (emphasis in original).

III

    It would be foolish to contend that the degree of privacy secured to citizens by the Fourth Amendmenthas been entirely unaffected by the advance of technology. For example, as the cases discussed above make clear, the technology enabling human flight has exposed to public view (and hence, we have said, to official observation) uncovered portions of the house and its curtilage that once were private. SeeCiraolo, supra, at 215. The question we confront today is what limits there are upon this power of technology to shrink the realm of guaranteed privacy.

    The Katz test–whether the individual has an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable–has often been criticized as circular, and hence subjective and unpredictable. See 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §2.1(d), pp. 393—394 (3d ed. 1996); Posner, The Uncertain Protection of Privacy by the Supreme Court, 1979 S. Ct. Rev. 173, 188; Carter, supra, at 97 (Scalia, J., concurring). But seeRakas, supra, at 143—144, n. 12. While it may be difficult to refineKatz when the search of areas such as telephone booths, automobiles, or even the curtilage and uncovered portions of residences are at issue, in the case of the search of the interior of homes–the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy–there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to bereasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by theFourth Amendment. We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical “intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,” Silverman, 365 U.S., at 512, constitutes a search–at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. On the basis of this criterion, the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search.2

    The Government maintains, however, that the thermal imaging must be upheld because it detected “only heat radiating from the external surface of the house,” Brief for United States 26. The dissent makes this its leading point, see post, at 1, contending that there is a fundamental difference between what it calls “off-the-wall” observations and “through-the-wall surveillance.” But just as a thermal imager captures only heat emanating from a house, so also a powerful directional microphone picks up only sound emanating from a house—and a satellite capable of scanning from many miles away would pick up only visible light emanating from a house. We rejected such a mechanical interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in Katz, where the eavesdropping device picked up only sound waves that reached the exterior of the phone booth. Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology–including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home. While the technology used in the present case was relatively crude, the rule we adopt must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development.3 The dissent’s reliance on the distinction between “off-the-wall” and “through-the-wall” observation is entirely incompatible with the dissent’s belief, which we discuss below, that thermal-imaging observations of the intimate details of a home are impermissible. The most sophisticated thermal imaging devices continue to measure heat “off-the-wall” rather than “through-the-wall”; the dissent’s disapproval of those more sophisticated thermal-imaging devices, see post, at 10, is an acknowledgement that there is no substance to this distinction. As for the dissent’s extraordinary assertion that anything learned through “an inference” cannot be a search, seepost, at 4—5, that would validate even the “through-the-wall” technologies that the dissent purports to disapprove. Surely the dissent does not believe that the through-the-wall radar or ultrasound technology produces an 8-by-10 Kodak glossy that needs no analysis (i.e., the making of inferences). And, of course, the novel proposition that inference insulates a search is blatantly contrary to United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984), where the police “inferred” from the activation of a beeper that a certain can of ether was in the home. The police activity was held to be a search, and the search was held unlawful.4

    The Government also contends that the thermal imaging was constitutional because it did not “detect private activities occurring in private areas,” Brief for United States 22. It points out that in Dow Chemical we observed that the enhanced aerial photography did not reveal any “intimate details.” 476 U.S., at 238. Dow Chemical, however, involved enhanced aerial photography of an industrial complex, which does not share theFourth Amendment sanctity of the home. The Fourth Amendment’s protection of the home has never been tied to measurement of the quality or quantity of information obtained. In Silverman, for example, we made clear that any physical invasion of the structure of the home, “by even a fraction of an inch,” was too much, 365 U.S., at 512, and there is certainly no exception to the warrant requirement for the officer who barely cracks open the front door and sees nothing but the nonintimate rug on the vestibule floor. In the home, our cases show,all details are intimate details, because the entire area is held safe from prying government eyes. Thus, in Karo, supra, the only thing detected was a can of ether in the home; and in Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the only thing detected by a physical search that went beyond what officers lawfully present could observe in “plain view” was the registration number of a phonograph turntable. These were intimate details because they were details of the home, just as was the detail of how warm–or even how relatively warm–Kyllo was heating his residence.5

    Limiting the prohibition of thermal imaging to “intimate details” would not only be wrong in principle; it would be impractical in application, failing to provide “a workable accommodation between the needs of law enforcement and the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment,” Oliver v. United States,466 U.S. 170, 181 (1984). To begin with, there is no necessary connection between the sophistication of the surveillance equipment and the “intimacy” of the details that it observes–which means that one cannot say (and the police cannot be assured) that use of the relatively crude equipment at issue here will always be lawful. The Agema Thermovision 210 might disclose, for example, at what hour each night the lady of the house takes her daily sauna and bath–a detail that many would consider “intimate”; and a much more sophisticated system might detect nothing more intimate than the fact that someone left a closet light on. We could not, in other words, develop a rule approving only that through-the-wall surveillance which identifies objects no smaller than 36 by 36 inches, but would have to develop a jurisprudence specifying which home activities are “intimate” and which are not. And even when (if ever) that jurisprudence were fully developed, no police officer would be able to know in advancewhether his through-the-wall surveillance picks up “intimate” details–and thus would be unable to know in advance whether it is constitutional.

    The dissent’s proposed standard–whether the technology offers the “functional equivalent of actual presence in the area being searched,” post, at 7–would seem quite similar to our own at first blush. The dissent concludes thatKatz was such a case, but then inexplicably asserts that if the same listening device only revealed the volume of the conversation, the surveillance would be permissible,post, at 10. Yet if, without technology, the police could not discern volume without being actually present in the phone booth, Justice Stevens should conclude a search has occurred. Cf. Karo, supra, at 735 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“I find little comfort in the Court’s notion that no invasion of privacy occurs until a listener obtains some significant information by use of the device… . A bathtub is a less private area when the plumber is present even if his back is turned”). The same should hold for the interior heat of the home if only a person present in the home could discern the heat. Thus the driving force of the dissent, despite its recitation of the above standard, appears to be a distinction among different types of information–whether the “homeowner would even care if anybody noticed,” post, at 10. The dissent offers no practical guidance for the application of this standard, and for reasons already discussed, we believe there can be none. The people in their houses, as well as the police, deserve more precision.6

    We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws “a firm line at the entrance to the house,” Payton, 445 U.S., at 590. That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright–which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that no “significant” compromise of the homeowner’s privacy has occurred, we must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendmentforward.

“The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens.” Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925).

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.

    Since we hold the Thermovision imaging to have been an unlawful search, it will remain for the District Court to determine whether, without the evidence it provided, the search warrant issued in this case was supported by probable cause–and if not, whether there is any other basis for supporting admission of the evidence that the search pursuant to the warrant produced.

* * *

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed; the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Notes

1.  When the Fourth Amendmentwas adopted, as now, to “search” meant “[t]o look over or through for the purpose of finding something; to explore; to examine by inspection; as, to search the house for a book; tosearch the wood for a thief.” N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 66 (1828) (reprint 6th ed. 1989).

2.  The dissent’s repeated assertion that the thermal imaging did not obtain information regarding the interior of the home, post, at 3, 4 (opinion of Stevens, J.), is simply inaccurate. A thermal imager reveals the relative heat of various rooms in the home. The dissent may not find that information particularly private or important, see post, at 4, 5, 10, but there is no basis for saying it is not information regarding the interior of the home. The dissent’s comparison of the thermal imaging to various circumstances in which outside observers might be able to perceive, without technology, the heat of the home–for example, by observing snowmelt on the roof, post, at 3–is quite irrelevant. The fact that equivalent information could sometimes be obtained by other means does not make lawful the use of means that violate the Fourth Amendment. The police might, for example, learn how many people are in a particular house by setting up year-round surveillance; but that does not make breaking and entering to find out the same information lawful. In any event, on the night of January 16, 1992, no outside observer could have discerned the relative heat of Kyllo’s home without thermal imaging.

3.  The ability to “see” through walls and other opaque barriers is a clear, and scientifically feasible, goal of law enforcement research and development. The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, a program within the United States Department of Justice, features on its Internet Website projects that include a “Radar-Based Through-the-Wall Surveillance System,” “Handheld Ultrasound Through the Wall Surveillance,” and a “Radar Flashlight” that “will enable law officers to detect individuals through interior building walls.” http://www.nlectc.org/techproj/ (visited May 3, 2001). Some devices may emit low levels of radiation that travel “through-the-wall,” but others, such as more sophisticated thermal imaging devices, are entirely passive, or “off-the-wall” as the dissent puts it.

4.  The dissent asserts, post, at 5, n. 3, that we have misunderstood its point, which is not that inferenceinsulates a search, but that inference alone is not a search. If we misunderstood the point, it was only in a good-faith effort to render the point germane to the case at hand. The issue in this case is not the police’s allegedly unlawful inferencing, but their allegedly unlawful thermal-imaging measurement of the emanations from a house. We say such measurement is a search; the dissent says it is not, because an inference is not a search. We took that to mean that, since the technologically enhanced emanations had to be the basis of inferences before anything inside the house could be known, the use of the emanations could not be a search. But the dissent certainly knows better than we what it intends. And if it means only that an inference is not a search, we certainly agree. That has no bearing, however, upon whether hi-tech measurement of emanations from a house is a search.

5.  The Government cites our statement in California v. Ciraolo,476 U.S. 207 (1986), noting apparent agreement with the State of California that aerial surveillance of a house’s curtilage could become “ ‘invasive’ ” if “ ‘modern technology’ ” revealed “ ‘those intimate associations, objects or activities otherwise imperceptible to police or fellow citizens.’ ” Id., at 215, n. 3 (quoting brief of the State of California). We think the Court’s focus in this second-hand dictum was not upon intimacy but upon otherwise-imperceptibility, which is precisely the principle we vindicate today.

6.  The dissent argues that we have injected potential uncertainty into the constitutional analysis by noting that whether or not the technology is in general public use may be a factor. See post, at 7—8. That quarrel, however, is not with us but with this Court’s precedent. SeeCiraolo, supra, at 215 (“In an age where private and commercial flight in the public airways is routine, it is unreasonable for respondent to expect that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet”). Given that we can quite confidently say that thermal imaging is not “routine,” we decline in this case to reexamine that factor.

Leave a comment