area’ ....” Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001) (quoting Silverman v. U.S., 365 U.S. 505, 512 (1961)). The technology at issue in Kyllo was a thermal imager that produced images showing heat distributions within the defendant’s home and in comparison with his neighbors’ homes. Id. at 29-30, 121 S.Ct. 2038. Based on their thermal imaging scan of Kyllo’s residence, officers determined that Kyllo was using halide lights to grow marijuana in his house. Id. at 30, 121 S.Ct. 2038. Though the officers obtained additional information about Kyl-lo’s increased electricity usage by subpoenaing his utility company, the Court determined that the officers’ use of the thermal imager constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. See id. at 40, 121 S.Ct. 2038; id. . 2010) (non-prece-dential) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, courts agree that individuals do
holding that defendant lacked reasonable expectation of privacy in phone and fax numbers dialed holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building holding that where there is no evidence of shared use or common authority an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files kept on a personally owned computer holding that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in identifying information transmitted for isps and phone providers to provide service