Warrantless pole-camera surveillance generally does not violate the Fourth Amendment when it records activities visible from a public street. In United States v. Kendrick, the 7th Circuit upheld surveillance of a fenced commercial property because a large opening left the relevant activity exposed. A fence alone (especially one with a huge gap) does not create a reasonable expectation of privacy.
UNITED STATES v. KENDRICK, 2026 WL 1982846 (7th Cir. 2026)
Pole cameras continue to generate Fourth Amendment litigation, but United States v. Kendrick reinforces the basic constitutional analysis: What could an ordinary person lawfully see from a public place?
Investigators in Indiana suspected Eric Kendrick of operating a large cocaine trafficking operation from an auto repair shop in Indianapolis. After learning Kendrick likely knew he was under investigation, detectives installed a camera on a utility pole across the street from the business without obtaining a warrant to place the camera. The camera recorded activity for about two weeks before officers obtained search warrants that ultimately uncovered 55 kilograms of cocaine, firearms and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Kendrick argued the warrantless pole camera surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment because the business was surrounded by a six-foot wooden fence. The court disagreed.
A fence alone does not create Fourth Amendment protection. The real question is whether the activities officers are observing are actually concealed from public view.
The court emphasized the fence did not completely shield the property from public view. In fact, a 30-foot opening allowed vehicles and pedestrians to enter the property, and officers testified many of the same activities captured by the pole camera were plainly visible from the street through that opening. Because the camera observed only what a passerby could have seen from a lawful public vantage point, the court concluded Kendrick did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in those activities. The fact that the camera could pan, tilt and zoom did not change the analysis because those features involved technology commonly available to the public rather than sophisticated surveillance equipment.
The court also noted Kendrick’s expectation of privacy was further reduced because the investigators’ surveillance involved a commercial property rather than a private residence. While businesses certainly retain Fourth Amendment protections, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently recognized commercial property generally receives less protection than the home.
A fence alone does not create Fourth Amendment protection. The real question is whether the activities officers are observing are actually concealed from public view. If officers can lawfully observe the same conduct from a place where they have a right to be, the use of a conventional pole camera ordinarily does not transform those observations into a constitutional search. At the same time, officers should remember courts continue to scrutinize long-term electronic surveillance, particularly when cameras are used to peer into areas that would not otherwise be visible from ground level. As technology advances, the line between ordinary observation and unconstitutional surveillance will continue to evolve.
