U.S. v. Kilgus, s. 77-1513
| Decision Date | 20 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 77-1513,77-1568 and 76-3699,s. 77-1513 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Russell KILGUS, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas CASO, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Lee BECK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William L. Osterhoudt (argued) of Singer & Osterhoudt, Michael H. Metzger (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
J. Stephen Czuleger, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before BROWNING and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and NIELSEN, * District Judge.
Appellants were convicted by the district court below of illegal importation of marijuana (Count II) and possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute (Count IV) (21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, 963, 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2). We reverse appellants' convictions because the only substantial evidence which connects them with the crime (a "unique identification" of their aircraft by a Customs Officer using a Forward Looking Infrared system (FLIR)) was inadmissible. 1
Briefly, the FLIR is a relatively new system developed by the military for the detection and tracking of targets through the use of infrared light rays. The system scans an area much the same as radar and utilizes an array of infrared detectors (the type, number, and effectiveness of each being a military secret). Infrared rays are picked up by these detectors, electronically processed, and shown as a visual image on a 6 X 81/2 screen very similar to a black and white TV screen. The image on the screen appears in black, white and grey contrasts. That is, objects which are hotter than their background appear white and objects colder than their background appear black (or vice versa, since the "mode" of the system can be reversed to give the image a reversed effect analogous to a photograph negative).
There is no question that the FLIR can be used for generic identification of objects, i. e., that it can readily be used to distinguish between a plane and a boat, or even between a Lear jet and a DC-3. At issue here, however, is whether the FLIR is sufficiently reliable and accepted in the scientific community to be used for unique identification. In other words, whether the FLIR can be used to identify one specific DC-3 from other DC-3's.
At approximately 1:45 a. m., on March 25, 1976, a Customs Patrol Officer at a radar control center in Phoenix, Arizona, observed an unidentified aircraft on his radar scope traveling in a direction toward the United States-Mexican border. Contrary to customary practice, the aircraft emitted no identification beacon signals. A Customs plane was contacted and began pursuit of the aircraft. The unidentified aircraft was observed on the FLIR system contained in the Customs plane and appeared to be a DC-3 type aircraft. This aircraft was followed until it landed on a dry lake bed in an area known as Lost Lake in San Bernardino County, California. The Customs plane continued circling at an altitude of 5,500 feet and kept the aircraft on the ground under surveillance with the FLIR. Three land vehicles met the aircraft and stayed next to it for nearly two hours. When these vehicles departed, the Customs plane followed them until they were intercepted (marijuana was found in these vehicles). The Customs plane then returned to the dry lake bed and discovered that the other aircraft had departed. This occurred about 4:30 a. m. About 6:00 a. m., a DC-3 landed at Las Vegas International Airport. This plane was piloted by appellant Kilgus and appellants Caso and Beck were passengers.
The only evidence at trial to connect the Kilgus, Caso and Beck DC-3 with the DC-3 that landed on the lake bed was the testimony of Customs Officer James Gibbs who viewed images of both aircraft on the screen of the FLIR in the Customs plane. In his opinion, both aircraft were the same. He arrived at this opinion because of certain similar "spots" which he saw on the FLIR screen around the elevator and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barefoot v. Estelle
...437, 461, 72 Cal.Rptr. 478, 493 (1968). 9. Other purportedly scientific proof has met a similar fate. See, e.g., United States v. Kilgus, 571 F.2d 508, 510 (CA9 1978) (expert testimony identifying aircraft through "forward looking infrared system" inadmissible because unreliable and not gen......
-
Keene Corp., Inc. v. Hall
...previously used to measure the height of lunar mountains, had never before been used to date a photograph); United States v. Kilgus, 571 F.2d 508, 510 (9th Cir.1978) (expert testimony inadmissible because based on the forward looking infrared system, which, although previously used for gene......
-
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Inc. v. Robinson
...scientific community. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 727 F.Supp. 570, 572 (S.D.Cal.1989) (quoting United States v. Kilgus, 571 F.2d 508, 510 (9th Cir.1978)). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923), which est......
-
U.S. v. Gwaltney
...was " 'sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs.' " United States v. Kilgus, 571 F.2d 508, 510 (9th Cir.1978), quoting Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). Additionally, he contends that the trial court erred ......
-
Expert handwriting testimony: is the writing really on the wall?
...See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 727 F. Supp. 570, 575 (S.D. Cal. 1989), rev'd, 509 U.S. at 579 (quoting United States v. Kilgus, 571 F.2d 508, 510 (9th Cir. 1978)) (reasoning that because opinion of petitioner's expert did not rely on enormous body of epidemiological data regarding......