Danny Kyllo Case

What do you think invades the privacy of one person? What are your expectations of privacy? Well, in the case of Carroll vs The United States, Carroll was arrested in his car for carrying alcohol during the prohibition era, establishing that one did not need a warrant to search a car because the evidence can move. In DLK’s case however, the big question was if the police could use thermal imagers, to look at the heat coming out of DLK’s house without a warrant. DLK’s privacy was not invaded because a thermal imager only shows heat loss from general areas of a home and a thermal imager is available to the public, for anyone to use. Using evidence from Carroll's case, Justice John Paul Adams statement and a brief example of how thermal imaging, one can come to a superb conclusion.

You may ask yourself, “Did the government go too far with this case by using a thermal imager?” “Was a warrant required?” DLK’s house was searched because he was guilty of growing marijuana in his home, which is illegal. Then the government used a thermal imager to see from which places heat was escaping the home, and they saw many places of the home that heat was escaping the house. With that evidence they were able to prove DLK guilty and arrest him. DLK then argued that a warrant was required for the government to search his home, but the government disagreed and thought it was constitutional. (Doc .E and D) The government did not go too far with this case because a thermal imager could be used for many things not just as a conclusion, the thermal imager doesn’t reveal any specific activities in the house, the thermal imager shows heat escaping the home which is exposed to public, and heat cannot be protected.

The main subject in the Kyllo case deals with the advance in modern technology and how it relates to constitutional law. The overall question in this case is whether or not the use of thermal imaging technology should be used as a tool for searching the home of a person. The argument by the appellant, Mr. Kyllo, uses the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment as a defense against the use of thermal imaging systems without a warrant to search for illegal drug production inside his home. Kyllo v. U.S. is currently pending before the United States Supreme

Mapp appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1961. The case basically came down to this fundamental question: may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings? The Fourth Amendment states, ?The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause?and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.? The Fourth Amendment, however, does not define when a search or seizure is

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

Would you want to have Federal agents come into your home and begin searching your possessions? Is exposing what you have inside your home, either personal belongings or simple everyday items to someone whom you do not know uncomfortable? In which situations should these searches occur without a warrant and do they violate the Fourth Amendment? There are many questions similar to these being debated at national level. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the government cannot search you, your home, or your belongings without a good reason. Nor can the government seize your belongings without a good reason. An important test case of the Fourth Amendment was the case of DLK. In the case of DLK, did the federal government go too far in using its power of search and seizure? There are three main reasons why the government did go too far in DLK’s case: there was no warrant to prove the agents could use the thermal imager and scan DLK’s property, it violated his right of privacy in his home, and the thermal imager used to scan his property may not be 100% accurate, and that since this device scans objects/property, it may be considered a search. But in this case there was no warrant once again to show as evidence that the Federal agents had permission to use the thermal imager.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

What if police could barge into any house whenever they feel like it? In a world like this, citizens would have no privacy. People would have to be on alert 24/7 in case any unwelcomed visitors invited themselves inside without permission. The Background Essay: Search and Seizure: Did the Government Go Too Far? notes that the British government would inspect colonists’ houses for certain goods. In order to avoid such circumstances, the Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution of the United States. The Fourth Amendment states that a search warrant and a reasonable cause is required before any government official is allowed to search another’s belongings. However, in some dire situations, a search warrant is not necessary. The Background Essay gives the examples, “…hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and/or permission of the suspect,” for when police do not need to worry about taking the time to receive a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is open to interpretation. As a result, there is a collection of various cases that need to be addressed that involve search and seizure. Such as the case of DLK. In this case, DLK’s house was searched by federal government officials with a thermal imager, which senses warmth, because he was suspected of growing marijuana. The question proposed is whether the use of such high-tech tools, like the thermal imager, count as a “search”. In a situation such as this, it is safe to say that the government went too

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. It consists of two clauses, the reasonableness clause which focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure and the warrant clause which limits the scope of a search. There are many views on how the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted, especially by today’s standards. The world has evolved significantly since the implementation of the Bill of Rights. As it evolved, time brought about numerous cases on the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. When plaintiffs are not satisfied with the decision of lower courts, they can

Your home is where you should have the most sense of protection and where your privacy should be most respected. In fact, it is supposed to have the most degree of protection of the Fourth Amendment. Document D helps emphasize the unknowingness of the exposure of DLK’s conduct to the public. The advances in technology have far surpassed what can be noticeable without the use of them. “When technology can exceed the natural senses, it subverts the human ability to contain private matters in a normal way and threatens the core expectation of privacy in the home” (Document D). Although the imager was able to be used from the outside of the house, it still violated the privacy of what was on the inside. Document F states, “[In this case,] the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without [going in], the surveillance is a search and is... unreasonable

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths (Brief for Respondent 3). In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search warrant. While the Petitioner would like the answer to be yes in both cases,

The main point here is that whether the evidence used for the trial discovered through unwarranted searches on the suspect’s home violate the suspect’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

Since its inception, the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution have been expanding and evolving because of new technology. The Fourth Amendment generally protects us all from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, n.d., p. 1199). Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Riley v. California highlight how new technology can lead to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that alter the protections provided by this amendment (Hall, 2015). In 1968, the Supreme Court decision in Katz v. United States fundamentally changed the measure used to judge whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurs due to new technology being utilized by law enforcement. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of Riley v. California is a more relatable case, since it involves technology that the vast majority of us use everyday (Savage, 2014). This case changed the way law enforcement is able to legally search the cellphone of an arrestee, by strengthening the arrestee’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.