Whether a law enforcement officer's warrantless use of Moocherhunter software and a directional antenna to locate a computer in petitioner's apartment is a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

QUESTION PRESENTED In Kyllo v. United States, the Court held that “obtaining by senseenhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search—at least where (as here) the technology is not in general public use.” 533 U.S. 27, 30 (2011). In this case, the court of appeals held that an FBI agent’s use of sophisticated software technology not in general public use to obtain information from inside petitioner’s residence is not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it did not invade petitioner’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” United States v. Norris, 9th Cir. No. 17-10354, 938 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2019) (App. 1-17). The question presented is whether a law enforcement officer’s warrantless use of Moocherhunter software and a directional antenna to locate a computer in petitioner’s apartment is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. i