Pole Cameras · Commercial Property · Privacy Fences · Fourth Amendment
United States v. Kendrick
No. 25-2067 (7th Cir. July 9, 2026)
A comprehensive legal monograph on warrantless pole-camera surveillance of fenced commercial property, the Seventh Circuit’s application of Tuggle and House, the diminished privacy afforded industrial sites, the significance of openings in privacy barriers, and the implications for modern video analytics, ALPR, RTCCs, and AI-enabled surveillance.
Executive Summary
United States v. Kendrick is the Seventh Circuit’s newest published pole-camera decision and an important extension of United States v. Tuggle and United States v. House. Unlike those earlier cases, which involved surveillance of homes, Kendrick involved a commercial auto-repair property surrounded by a six-foot wooden fence. The court nevertheless held that the warrantless use of a pole camera did not violate the Fourth Amendment because a large opening in the fence left the relevant activities observable to ground-level passersby.
The decision arose from a narcotics investigation in Indianapolis. In early 2023, drug-enforcement agents received information from a confidential informant that Eric Kendrick was involved in receiving and transporting large quantities of narcotics throughout Indiana. Officers began a months-long investigation and followed Kendrick as he traveled between central and northwest Indiana.
During one surveillance operation, agents saw Kendrick enter a residence empty-handed and leave with a black bookbag. After he returned to central Indiana the next day, officers stopped his vehicle. A narcotics-detection canine alerted, and officers searched the vehicle. They found the black bookbag empty on the floor and $12,884 in a locked glove compartment. Detective Matthew Kinkade concluded that the stop had alerted Kendrick that he was under law-enforcement surveillance.
Investigators learned that Kendrick leased an auto-repair shop on Massachusetts Avenue in Indianapolis. Concerned that ordinary physical surveillance might now be compromised, Detective Kinkade requested a stationary pole camera across the street from the shop. He did not obtain a warrant.
The day after state police confirmed the camera request, Kinkade drove past the property and discovered that a six-foot wooden fence had recently been installed. The landlords—not Kendrick—had arranged for the fence after the city issued a zoning-violation notice concerning inoperable vehicles and debris. The fence ran around most of the property but contained two substantial gaps. One was large enough for a person to walk through. The other was approximately thirty feet wide and had no gate or other obstruction. It was wide enough for multiple flatbed trucks and another vehicle to park side by side.
That thirty-foot opening became the central fact in the case. Behind it stood a large garage that individuals used to enter the building. The court concluded that people and activity around that garage could be seen by ordinary ground-level observers through the opening. The pole camera therefore did not obtain a view materially unavailable to the public.
The camera was installed and activated on May 17, 2023 and recorded through May 31. After approximately two weeks, Detective Kinkade noticed increased activity. He drove to the property on May 31 and watched from a nearby physical vantage while also viewing the pole-camera feed. He observed people entering and exiting the property in a manner he believed consistent with large-scale drug distribution.
After one person left in a vehicle, officers conducted a traffic stop and found ten kilograms of cocaine. The arrested individual had warned people at the shop about police activity, prompting several people, including Kendrick, to attempt to flee. Police arrested two people but did not locate Kendrick that afternoon.
Detective Kinkade then obtained a warrant to search the Massachusetts Avenue property. Officers seized fifty-five kilograms of cocaine, multiple firearms, and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kinkade also obtained a warrant for Kendrick’s internal surveillance footage and a separate warrant for Kendrick’s residence. Kendrick was later indicted and arrested.
Kendrick moved to suppress, arguing that the pole camera violated his Fourth Amendment rights by seeing activity within fenced property. The district court rejected the argument. It emphasized three propositions. First, the property was an industrial site rather than a home, and neither the Supreme Court nor the Seventh Circuit recognizes a doctrine of “commercial curtilage” equivalent to the curtilage of a residence. Second, Tuggle did not help Kendrick because the camera in Tuggle had watched a home for eighteen months and still was held not to be a search. Third, the large opening in Kendrick’s fence meant that the captured activities remained visible from the street.
The district court also identified two independent reasons the evidence would survive even if the camera were unlawful. It concluded that probable cause to search the commercial property existed without the pole-camera footage. It also concluded that the officers’ later reliance on the issued search warrants would qualify for the good-faith exception.
Kendrick entered a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute controlled substances, preserving his suppression claim. The firearm count was dismissed on the government’s motion. He received a sentence of 140 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court applied the two-part privacy analysis associated with Katz: whether Kendrick manifested a subjective expectation of privacy and whether society would recognize that expectation as objectively reasonable. The court focused primarily on the objective inquiry, consistent with Tuggle.
Kendrick argued that the six-foot fence manifested an expectation of privacy. The court acknowledged that a fence can be evidence of a privacy expectation. But the factual circumstances weakened his claim. Kendrick did not install the fence; his landlords did, and they acted for zoning-related reasons rather than to shield him from surveillance. More importantly, the fence did not actually conceal the relevant area. The thirty-foot opening left substantial portions of the property observable to passersby.
The court then applied Tuggle and House. Those cases establish in the Seventh Circuit that government does not conduct a search when it uses common technology from a place officers are lawfully entitled to be to record events observable to ordinary passersby. Kendrick’s camera sat on a utility pole on public property. It could tilt, zoom, and pan but had no infrared or night-vision capabilities. The court therefore treated it as common technology in general public use.
The opinion also drew on United States v. Tolar, where the Seventh Circuit held that fencing does not necessarily establish a strong privacy expectation when passersby can readily see through or around it. Kendrick’s wooden fence was more opaque than the chain-link fence at issue in Tolar, but the thirty-foot gap made the distinction constitutionally unimportant for the activity actually captured.
Commercial-property doctrine supplied an additional reason for the result. Relying on Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, the court noted that businesses generally possess a lower expectation of privacy in open exterior areas than individuals possess in the home and residential curtilage. The open areas of an industrial facility are not treated as equivalent to the constitutionally protected curtilage of a dwelling.
Kendrick therefore fills an important place in the modern surveillance line. Tuggle and House address public-facing residential surveillance; Kendrick applies the same principles in the commercial context and shows how property type and actual visual shielding can materially affect the analysis. It also confirms that a fence is not a talisman. A barrier matters only insofar as it actually manifests and accomplishes privacy in the area being surveilled.
For law-enforcement agencies, the operational lesson is precise. Before installing a pole camera, document what is visible from ground level. Photograph the fence, gates, openings, roads, alleys, and public vantage points. A camera that observes through a thirty-foot opening presents a much stronger public-view case than a camera deliberately elevated to see over an opaque, closed residential privacy fence.
The case also underscores the importance of parallel probable-cause development. Investigators had substantial evidence independent of the camera: vehicle movements, associations with people involved in drug activity, a canine alert, cash recovered during a stop, physical observations at the shop, and the ten kilograms of cocaine recovered after a vehicle left the property. That redundancy provided a powerful litigation backstop.
Finally, Kendrick remains a conventional-camera case. The camera had tilt, zoom, and pan functions but no infrared or night vision. It did not involve face recognition, automated object identification, historical cross-camera tracking, or AI-based behavioral analytics. As agencies add those capabilities, the simple public-view analysis may become less decisive.
Five Key Takeaways
Facts of the Investigation
In early 2023, drug-enforcement agents received information from a confidential informant that Eric Kendrick was involved in receiving and transporting large quantities of narcotics throughout Indiana. Officers began a months-long investigation.
Agents followed Kendrick as he traveled from central Indiana to northwest Indiana. On one occasion, officers watched him enter a residence without carrying anything and leave with a black bookbag. The next day, after he returned to central Indiana, Detective Matthew Kinkade directed a traffic stop.
A narcotics-detection canine alerted to Kendrick’s vehicle. Officers searched it and found the black bookbag lying empty on the rear floorboard and $12,884 in a locked glove compartment. Kinkade believed the traffic stop caused Kendrick to realize that he was being surveilled.
Investigators also learned that Kendrick leased an auto-repair shop on Massachusetts Avenue in Indianapolis. Because conventional surveillance might now be compromised, Kinkade requested installation of a stationary camera on a utility pole across the street. He did not obtain a warrant for the camera.
The Fence: The Critical Factual Issue
The day after Indiana State Police confirmed Kinkade’s camera request, he drove past the shop and saw that a six-foot wooden fence had recently been installed.
Kendrick did not install it. His landlords had arranged for the fence because Kendrick was leaving inoperable vehicles and debris on the property and the city had issued a zoning-violation notice.
The fence covered most of the perimeter but contained two openings. One was large enough for pedestrian passage. The second was approximately thirty feet wide, completely ungated, and large enough to accommodate multiple flatbed trucks and another vehicle side by side.
A large garage sat behind the thirty-foot opening. Kinkade personally observed people entering the building through that garage. The court therefore concluded that the area captured by the pole camera was visible from ground level through the opening.
Why purpose mattered
The fact that Kendrick did not install the fence was not dispositive by itself, but it weakened the claim that the barrier manifested his own subjective privacy expectation. The landlords’ purpose was code compliance and concealment of debris, not necessarily privacy from public observation.
Why effectiveness mattered more
Even if Kendrick subjectively valued the fence, the objective Fourth Amendment analysis turned on the fact that it did not actually conceal the activity recorded by the camera.
The Pole-Camera Technology
Public utility pole
The camera was installed on public property, placing officers in a location where they were lawfully entitled to be.
Tilt, zoom, and pan
The system could tilt, zoom, and pan. The court considered these ordinary camera capabilities rather than specialized sensing technology.
No infrared or night vision
The camera lacked infrared and night-vision capability. That distinction helped place the technology within the category of equipment in general public use.
Short duration
The camera operated from May 17 through May 31, 2023—approximately two weeks. Kendrick therefore did not present the long-duration mosaic problem that featured prominently in Tuggle, House, and Moore-Bush.
Procedural History
Agents receive information that Kendrick is transporting large quantities of narcotics throughout Indiana.
Agents follow Kendrick, conduct a traffic stop, receive a canine alert, and recover $12,884.
The camera begins recording the Massachusetts Avenue commercial property.
Kinkade observes the property both physically and through the pole-camera feed.
A vehicle leaving the property is stopped and searched; officers recover cocaine.
Police search the shop and recover 55 kilograms of cocaine, firearms, and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Kendrick is charged with drug conspiracy and a firearm offense.
The court rejects the pole-camera claim and also finds independent probable cause and good faith.
Kendrick pleads to the conspiracy count while preserving suppression review.
The appellate court affirms.
Holding
The Seventh Circuit held that Kendrick did not possess an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the activities captured by the pole camera.
The court emphasized four facts: the property was commercial rather than residential; the fence contained a substantial opening; the recorded activities were observable to passersby; and the camera used common technology from a lawful public location.
Because no search occurred, the Fourth Amendment did not require a warrant for the pole camera.
Subjective Expectation of Privacy
The court first considered whether Kendrick had manifested a subjective expectation of privacy. Kendrick pointed to the six-foot fence.
The Seventh Circuit treated the fence as relevant but not conclusive. Kendrick’s landlords had installed it rather than Kendrick himself, and they did so for reasons connected to zoning enforcement rather than surveillance privacy.
The court therefore found little evidence beyond the fence itself that Kendrick subjectively expected the observed activity to remain private.
More importantly, the court noted that Katz doctrine focuses heavily on the objective component. Even a genuine subjective desire for privacy does not create Fourth Amendment protection where society would not recognize the expectation as reasonable.
Objective Reasonableness of the Privacy Expectation
The objective question dominated the decision. Could Kendrick reasonably expect the activities seen by the camera to remain private from government observation?
The answer was no because the activity was visible through the thirty-foot opening to ordinary ground-level passersby. Detective Kinkade’s own physical observations supported that factual conclusion.
The pole camera did not create a new vantage that exposed otherwise hidden activity. It allowed investigators to observe more efficiently from a place they lawfully could occupy.
Commercial Property and the Absence of “Commercial Curtilage”
One of Kendrick’s most important distinctions from Tuggle and House is the nature of the property. Those cases involved homes. Kendrick involved an auto-repair shop.
The district court observed that neither the Supreme Court nor the Seventh Circuit has recognized a concept of commercial curtilage equivalent to the curtilage of a dwelling. The Seventh Circuit accepted the broader proposition that commercial open areas receive less protection than the home.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dow Chemical Co. v. United States provides the doctrinal foundation. The open areas of a large industrial plant complex do not receive the same protection as the intimate areas immediately surrounding a home.
Tuggle and House Applied
Kendrick confirms that Tuggle and House remain the governing Seventh Circuit framework.
Tuggle involved eighteen months of around-the-clock pole-camera surveillance outside a private residence. The court nevertheless held no search occurred because officers used technology in public use, occupied lawful locations, and observed plainly visible happenings.
House reaffirmed that rule for thirteen months of surveillance and articulated the governing principle in concise terms: government does not invade a reasonable expectation of privacy when it uses common technology from a lawful place to capture events observable to passersby.
Kendrick fit that rule even more comfortably. The target was commercial property rather than a home, the surveillance lasted only two weeks, and the activity remained visible through a huge opening in the fence.
United States v. Tolar and Fence Visibility
The Seventh Circuit also relied on United States v. Tolar for the proposition that fencing does not necessarily establish a reasonable expectation of privacy when passersby can still see the relevant activity.
Tolar involved a chain-link fence, while Kendrick involved a wooden privacy fence. But the court treated the difference as immaterial because the thirty-foot gap in Kendrick’s fence preserved a clear line of sight.
This provides an important practical rule: courts will examine the real-world effectiveness of a barrier. Labels such as “privacy fence” matter less than whether the structure actually prevents public observation of the activity the government records.
Dow Chemical and Industrial Privacy
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States involved aerial photography of an industrial facility. The Supreme Court recognized that commercial property receives Fourth Amendment protection but distinguished the open areas of an industrial complex from residential curtilage.
Kendrick applied that distinction. The auto-repair property was not a dwelling, and the exterior commercial activity visible through the fence opening did not receive the heightened sanctity accorded the home.
The commercial context therefore reinforced—rather than independently created—the conclusion that Kendrick’s asserted privacy expectation was objectively unreasonable.
Independent Probable Cause
The district court determined that the search warrant for the Massachusetts Avenue property was supported by probable cause even if all pole-camera information were removed.
The independent evidence included Kendrick’s GPS-recorded vehicle movements, his association with individuals involved in drug offenses, the narcotics-detection dog’s alert to his vehicle, the large amount of cash found in the glove compartment, physical observations of Kendrick at the commercial property, and the vehicle that officers personally saw arrive and depart shortly before discovering ten kilograms of cocaine.
This alternative holding demonstrates a valuable investigative principle. High-risk surveillance methods should not become the sole foundation for probable cause where traditional investigation can independently establish the nexus to criminal activity.
The Good-Faith Backstop
The district court also concluded that the officers’ reliance on the search warrants was objectively reasonable and therefore protected by the good-faith exception even if the pole-camera information had been constitutionally problematic.
The Seventh Circuit did not need to reach that issue because it held that the camera did not conduct a search. But the district court’s alternative reasoning remains operationally instructive.
Good faith should not be treated as a substitute for constitutional compliance. It is a remedial doctrine addressing exclusion after a mistake. Agencies should aim to design surveillance that is lawful on the merits while also preserving independent probable cause and careful judicial review.
Important Limits of Kendrick
- The property was commercial, not residential.
- The fence contained a thirty-foot ungated opening.
- The recorded activities were observable to ground-level passersby.
- The camera sat on public property.
- The technology was conventional and lacked infrared or night vision.
- Surveillance lasted about two weeks rather than many months.
- The case did not involve face recognition, automated re-identification, or cross-camera tracking.
- The court did not approve a camera intentionally positioned to see over a fully effective residential privacy fence.
- Independent probable cause substantially reduced suppression risk.
Practical Guidance for Law Enforcement
Document the barrier before installation
Photograph the fence, gates, gaps, sight lines, roads, and ordinary public vantage points before the camera is deployed.
Record what officers can see from ground level
Kendrick was strengthened by Detective Kinkade’s personal observations near the property. A pole camera should not become the only evidence establishing that the monitored activity is publicly visible.
Distinguish home from commercial property
Do not casually transfer Kendrick’s industrial-property analysis to a residence. Residential curtilage receives substantially stronger protection.
Do not defeat effective barriers without legal review
If a camera must be elevated to see over an opaque closed fence, obtain legal review and strongly consider a warrant.
Inventory technical capabilities
Pan, tilt, and zoom were permitted here. Infrared, thermal, face recognition, cross-camera tracking, and AI analytics require fresh analysis.
Build independent probable cause
Use informants, physical surveillance, canine alerts, records, financial evidence, vehicle information, and other investigative sources so that a novel surveillance issue does not determine the entire case.
Commercial Pole-Camera Deployment Checklist
- Property type: Commercial, industrial, mixed-use, or residential?
- Camera location: Is the government lawfully entitled to occupy the vantage point?
- Fence type: Opaque, chain link, partial, or decorative?
- Openings: Are there gates, gaps, driveways, or pedestrian entrances?
- Ground-level view: Can a passerby actually see the recorded area?
- Who installed the barrier: Owner, tenant, landlord, or third party?
- Purpose of barrier: Privacy, security, zoning, appearance, or access control?
- Camera elevation: Does elevation create a view unavailable from ground level?
- Technology: Standard camera, infrared, thermal, audio, face recognition, or AI?
- Duration: How long will surveillance run?
- Retention: How long will video remain searchable?
- Historical review: Who may query old footage?
- Vehicle identification: Is ALPR integrated?
- Person identification: Is facial recognition or re-identification enabled?
- Cross-camera tracking: Can persons or vehicles be followed elsewhere?
- Independent probable cause: What evidence exists apart from the camera?
- Audit logs: Are searches, exports, and viewing logged?
- Warrant option: Would judicial authorization materially reduce risk?
AI and Video-Analytics Implications
Kendrick involved a conventional pole camera, but its emphasis on actual public visibility provides a useful framework for evaluating AI-enhanced systems.
AI does not make a hidden view public
If a privacy barrier conceals activity from ordinary observation, computer vision does not convert that activity into public information merely because software can detect or enhance it.
Automated object detection
AI can identify vehicles, people, bags, packages, and repeated activity across months of video. That changes how efficiently agencies can mine a record even if the raw images themselves were lawfully captured.
Facial recognition
Automatically identifying every person entering a commercial site raises different privacy and associational concerns than simply viewing publicly visible activity.
Cross-camera tracking
If a pole camera connects a vehicle or person to an RTCC network, the surveillance can extend far beyond the shop. That person-centered tracking begins to implicate the aggregation concerns in Carpenter, Chatrie, and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle.
Computational enhancement
High-resolution enhancement or AI reconstruction may reveal details not realistically available to a ground-level passerby. Agencies should distinguish “recording what is visible” from “computationally extracting what ordinary observation cannot discern.”
Real-Time Crime Centers and ALPR
A commercial pole camera can become significantly more powerful when connected to an RTCC. A vehicle seen through a fence opening can be identified by ALPR, traced through a regional network, connected to other cameras, and linked to records or persons.
That integration is operationally valuable but analytically different from Kendrick’s isolated camera. Agencies should document when an inquiry moves from observation of one place to reconstruction of a person’s or vehicle’s movements across multiple locations.
Historical searching
RTCC systems may also maintain long-term archives. If investigators can retrospectively identify every time a person or vehicle appeared at a site, the archive may raise broader aggregation issues than Kendrick’s two-week prospective deployment.
Future Litigation
Fully enclosed residential fences
The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly reserved harder questions involving cameras deliberately positioned to see into residential areas concealed from ordinary ground-level observation.
Commercial sites with closed gates
Kendrick’s thirty-foot opening was decisive. A truly enclosed industrial yard with opaque fencing and controlled access could produce a different result.
AI-enhanced visibility
Courts may need to decide when computational zoom, enhancement, or inference reveals information beyond what passersby realistically can observe.
Cross-platform movement reconstruction
Integration with ALPR, public cameras, and drones may transform fixed-location monitoring into broader movement tracking.
State constitutional law
States may impose stronger privacy protections on commercial or residential video surveillance than the federal rule applied in Kendrick.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Kendrick involve a home?
No. It involved a leased auto-repair shop.
Was the property fenced?
Yes. A six-foot wooden fence surrounded most of the property, but it had a roughly thirty-foot opening and a second pedestrian-sized gap.
Why did the fence not create privacy?
The relevant activities remained visible through the large opening to people at ground level.
Did Kendrick install the fence?
No. His landlords installed it for zoning-related reasons.
How long did the pole-camera surveillance last?
Approximately two weeks, from May 17 through May 31, 2023.
Did the camera use infrared or night vision?
No. It could tilt, zoom, and pan but lacked those enhanced sensing capabilities.
Did the Seventh Circuit rely on Tuggle and House?
Yes. Kendrick expressly applied those precedents.
Was there probable cause without the camera footage?
The district court concluded yes, identifying substantial independent investigative evidence.
Does Kendrick allow police to see over any fence?
No. The decision depended on the fact that passersby could see the relevant activity through the fence opening.
Instructor and Training Notes
Teaching objective 1: Fence versus privacy
Ask students whether a six-foot fence automatically creates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Then add the thirty-foot ungated opening.
Teaching objective 2: Commercial versus residential property
Compare Kendrick with House. The same camera technology may be evaluated differently because the home receives heightened constitutional protection.
Teaching objective 3: Common technology
Change the facts by adding infrared, face recognition, or AI enhancement and ask whether Kendrick remains controlling.
Teaching objective 4: Independent probable cause
Use the case to show why traditional investigative evidence should continue to develop even when surveillance technology is effective.
Teaching objective 5: Actual visibility
Have students distinguish what the camera theoretically could see from what a real passerby could actually observe from the public street.
Shield Practice Notes
- A fence is evidence of privacy, not automatic privacy.
- Document actual sight lines. Kendrick turned on the thirty-foot opening.
- Commercial property receives less protection than residential curtilage.
- Tuggle and House remain controlling in the Seventh Circuit.
- Conventional pan, tilt, and zoom stayed within the public-view framework here.
- Infrared, thermal, facial recognition, and AI were not resolved.
- Do not use Kendrick to justify intentionally defeating a closed residential privacy barrier.
- Develop independent probable cause in parallel.
- Physical observations by officers can strengthen the public-view record.
- RTCC and ALPR integration can materially expand the surveillance beyond Kendrick’s facts.
- Property type, barrier effectiveness, technology, and duration all matter.