Kyllo v. United States (2001) ruled that when the government uses a device that's not in use by the general public to "see" things it could not without intrusion, that is a "search" and requires a warrant. True False

True

Explanation:

In Kyllo v. United States (2001), a 5-4 opinion was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia in which the Court held that the Government used a device that is not in public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion hence the surveillance is a 'search' and is unreasonable without a warrant.

answer; i believe the answer is 80%, plz check first good luck;

answer; caravan;