“Mission Impossible” in Real Life: When Does High-Tech Snooping Become an Illegal Search?

By: John Guidry

Some would say technology has made our lives better. But one thing we can all agree on is that technology has made it a lot easier for the government to track us. Creepy, invasive technology is no longer the stuff of Mission Impossible or the NSA. These tools have trickled down to local police departments.

The Question: Which of these snooping technologies constitute a “search”?

• The Rule: Under the Fourth Amendment, if it is a “search,” the police need a warrant.
• The Definition: Technically, a search occurs “whenever something not previously in plain view becomes exposed to an investigating officer” (Norris v. State). Even moving a stereo equipment slightly to read a serial number counts as a search (Arizona v. Hicks).

But what about invisible searches? What about Wi-Fi, heat sensors, and GPS? To understand the future, we have to look at the past.

Did the police use high-tech gadgets to spy on you without a warrant?

The future is scary, but the Constitution still applies. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Evolution of Privacy: From Phone Booths to GPS

1. The Phone Booth (Katz v. U.S., 1967)

• The Tech: Police wiretapped a public phone booth to listen to a bookie.
• The Argument: The State claimed a glass booth is “public,” so there is no privacy.
• The Ruling: The Supreme Court disagreed. When Katz closed the door, he expected privacy. This created the “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” test. If you think it’s private, and society agrees, the police need a warrant.

2. The Pen Register (Smith v. Maryland, 1979)

• The Tech: Police asked the phone company for a list of numbers Smith dialed (not the audio of the calls).
• The Ruling: NOT a Search. The Court ruled that you have no privacy in the numbers you dial because you voluntarily give that data to a third party (the phone company).

3. The Thermal Imager (Kyllo v. U.S., 2001)

• The Tech: Police used a thermal imaging device to see heat lamps growing weed inside a home.
• The Ruling: Illegal Search. The Court ruled that using technology “not in general public use” to see inside a home requires a warrant. (Unlike binoculars, which are common).

4. The GPS Tracker (U.S. v. Jones, 2012)

• The Tech: Police secretly attached a magnetic GPS tracker to Jones’ Jeep.
• The Ruling: Illegal Search. The Court revived the “Trespass Doctrine.” Physically touching the car to attach the device was a trespass on Jones’ property.

The Million Dollar Question: Wireless Trespass

Jones saved us from physical trackers. But what about Digital Trespass?

• Black Box Hacking: Every car has a “black box” recording speed and location. If the police wirelessly hack into it while you drive by, is that a trespass?
• Cell Phone Radios: Every phone has a “radio” layer that is easily hackable. If the government pings your phone to get your location without touching it, does Jones apply?

Under the Katz test, we definitely have a “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” in our digital lives. But the government is betting that you won’t notice the intrusion.

John’s 2026 Update: The Data Broker Loophole & Geofencing

Note: In 2012, we worried about police hacking our cars. In 2026, they don’t have to hack anything—they just buy a subscription.

1. The “Data Broker” Loophole In 2026, the biggest threat to the Fourth Amendment is the Third-Party Doctrine (from Smith v. Maryland) on steroids.

• The Reality: Your car manufacturer (GM, Ford, Tesla) collects your driving data (speed, braking, location). You agreed to this in the Terms of Service.
• The Loophole: The manufacturer sells this data to data brokers (like LexisNexis). The police then buy the data from the broker.
• The Defense: Courts are currently split. We argue that buying this data circumvents the warrant requirement, but many judges rule that because you clicked “I Agree,” you waived your privacy rights.

2. Geofence Warrants (The Digital Dragnet) Police no longer target one suspect.

• The Tech: They send a warrant to Google or Apple asking: “Give us the ID of every phone that was within 100 yards of this bank robbery.”
• The Defense: We fight these as “General Warrants” (which are unconstitutional). They sweep up innocent people (like you walking your dog) just to find one suspect.

3. Drone Surveillance (The New Kyllo) In Kyllo, thermal imagers were rare. In 2026, drones are everywhere.

• The Law: Because drones are now “in general public use” (unlike thermal imagers in 2001), police argue they can fly a drone over your fenced backyard without a warrant.
• The Strategy: We argue that sustained, hovering surveillance is different from a casual flyover, violating your expectation of privacy.

Encrypt Everything

The writers of the Constitution couldn’t predict Wi-Fi, but they understood the danger of a government with unchecked power. Until the Supreme Court catches up to 2026 technology, your best defense is encryption and a good lawyer.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s fight the surveillance state.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.