Danny Kyllo

989 WordsApr 13, 20114 Pages
1. On January 16, 1992, two agents from the United States Department of the Interior, Elliott and Dan Haas used a thermal imaging device to scan the home of Danny Lee Kyllo of Florence, OR. The device was known specifically as an Agema Thermovision 210 imager, which detected various levels of radiating heat. The two agents had suspected Kyllo of growing marijuana in his portion of the triplex he lived in due to information they had received from neighbors. At 3:20 am the men took several minutes and used the thermal imaging device to determine that there were unusually high temperatures radiating from Kyllo’s garage, thought to be the location of the growing lamps used for the marijuana growth. This information, along with the tips from…show more content…
6. This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”. Understanding the difference between state and federal courts is important. First off, we know that this case is a matter of the federal courts for two main reasons; (1) the original offense of manufacturing marijuana is an offense against the laws of the United States, making it a federal crime and (2) by statute the district courts have original jurisdiction to try tort cases involving citizens who suffer damages caused by officers or agents of the federal government. Because agents of the federal government offended Mr. Kyllo’s constitutional right, this was indeed under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, this case is decided using federal substantive law. 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
Open Document