Kyllo Case Summary

The parties in this case study were the family of Jeremy Knoke and South Carolina Department of Parks and Recreation. July 5, 1991, 12 year old Jeremy Knoke died while sleeping in a cabin at Cherew State Park. He was staying at the park’s group camp facility as a guest of Berea First Baptist Church which had leased the facility from the park and recreation department. There were five boys asleep in the cabin when a fire broke out due to an electrical fan Jeremy brought with him from home. The other boy’s were able to escape the cabin quickly but Jeremy did not. His body was found on the bed next to his own as if he tried to escape but was unable to do so. The cause of death in this case was asphyxiation from smoke inhalation. The estate of

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

Supreme court rules federal investigators can wiretap into suspects phones legally, and use those conversations as evidence.

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

Caballes, Illinois was using cases that in the end turned to the side of a sniff being a search. While Caballes lawyer was uses the same cases to go against them and even used an extra case, Kyllo v. United States, to prove his point. In Kyllo v. United States, a Department of the Interior agent was suspicious of a young man, Danny Kyllo, of growing marijuana in his home. He used a thermal imaging device and his heating/electricity bills to determine this. The search showed that he was indeed growing marijuana, but was ruled against the United States because of the thermal device. The thermal device has been banned from being used after this because it shows items that are hidden from plain view. Caballes lawyer used the device to compare to police dogs in being wrong to search for illegal items because they are finding hidden

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) A device that is used to monitor a space without physically intruding upon it is a

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

Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is

The thermal imager used in DLK’s case is not a 4th Amendment search. The US Government explains that “the thermal imager did not detect private activity in a private place, but instead scanned a surface exposed to the public view in order to detect the physical fact of relative heat [escape]” (Document E). Which, in this case, does not infringe on any right of privacy. What the US is trying to explain is that since the home, vehicle, technology, belongings etc. were not affected by the search, or even looked upon in the first place, the scan is not considered a search. Had the scan produced images of heat circulating inside the house, the right of privacy to one’s action inside his home will be violated. To further examine, Justice Paul John

I always enjoy reading your posts. They are always very thoughtful and ignite more inquiry for myself. In particular reference to your post this week, I find myself wondering about obtaining participants for clinical trials.

He suggests closing out the docs and head over to the homepage. He stays engaged by asking her location at that time. Furthermore, opening a new window to log into.

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.

The case of Horton v. Goose Creek I.S.D. held that the use of canines to sniff lockers and cars did not constitute a search. This court also ruled, however, that the use of canines to search students must only be done if there is individualized suspicion. Due to many other issues which could complicate the search, such as allergies,

The right to privacy may come in conflict with the investigation of police in several aspects. Narco-analysis, polygraph test and brain mapping tests, in application, make unwarranted intrusion into the right to privacy of a person. The Supreme Court was acknowledging the individual right to privacy by declaring these tests inhuman and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in Directorate of Revenue and Anr v. Mohammed Nisar Holia cited the US Supreme Court judgement which held ‘thermal imaging’, a sophisticated sense enhancing technology which when kept outside the residential house of a person can detect whether the inmate has kept narcotic substance within as infringement on the right to privacy of the said person. The court discouraged the