Kyllo V. United States: A Case Study

We all expect to have privacy in our homes, but just how much privacy do we actually have? In Oregon, DLK was suspected to be growing marijuana in his home, so the police used thermal imaging, without a warrant, to provide evidence to arrest him. DLK claimed that his right to protection from search and seizure, provided by the fourth amendment, was violated. The Supreme Court then had to decide if the thermal imaging scan infringed DLK’s fourth amendment rights. While he may have been growing marijuana in his home, the U.S. Government violated his fourth amendment rights when they used thermal imaging, without a warrant, to gather evidence.

The Government argued the defendants’ Fourth Amendment not violated under the constitutional because the parked vehicle was at a public lot. In some States, the Government has the authority to allow police officers to search a vehicle without the necessity of warrant. “...as long as a state is deciding law based upon its interpretation of its own constitution, the state can be more restrictive than the Supreme Court. However, if the state is interpreting the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, then they must follow the body of law established by the United States Supreme Court”(Policelink). The Government believes the attachment of the monitoring device for search was a responsible forfeiting act. As well as wiretapping the defendants cellular to help them enforce a predominantly well prepared investigation.

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse

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 Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

The fourth amendment states that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” cannot be searched without a warrant. If so many people own a cell phone, wouldn’t they be no different than documents or other pieces of property that conceal private information? Cell phones contain just as much information about a person as any paper would. A cell phone is a piece of private property that one may use on an everyday basis. Mr. Riley is no different. His cell phone was his property that was searched illegally, and although he did commit crimes that were shown in his cell phone, the police still needed a warrant to search the phone. Based on the 4th amendment, I have concluded that the San Diego Police Department’s search of David Riley’s cell phone was unconstitutional and

In 2001, a man named Danny Kyllo was suspected for growing marijuana in his house by the police. They used a thermal-imaging device to detect heat inside his house that might be caused by the lights needed to grow the illegal substance’ without natural sunlight. The police convicted Kyllo for his crimes, but Kyllo argued that the evidence cannot be used since it violates the Fourth Amendment. Did the government go too far? Or were they able to do what they did? This means that the police did not have probable cause to use the thermal imager, it wasn’t in plain sight, and it was not a situation where stopping to get a warrant was too inconvenient. The government definitely went too far because it was an invasion of privacy using technology 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.

Jones, “the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search.’” They stressed the importance of fact that the Government had “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.” Under these circumstances, it was not necessary to inquire about the defendant’s expectation of privacy in his vehicle’s movements in order to determine if a Fourth Amendment search had occurred. They continued to reaffirmed this principle in Florida v. Jardines, where they held that having a drug-sniffing dog nose around a suspect’s front porch was a search, because police physically entered the enclosure of the home and gathered information without being permitted by the

The precise definition for the term “search” does not exist under current federal law. “The supreme court first defined a search in terms of whether a physical invasion occurred in a constitutionally protected area.” Does the warrantless search and seizure of cellphone records violate the Fourth Amendment? The 4th amendment is an important bill of right for citizens but unfortunately its drawback is prominent in that it promotes crime, puts society’s safety at risk and makes police job complicated at the expense of extreme privacy.

The Fourth Amendment protects unreasonable search and seizures for all people, but DLK’s case is a controversial one with the use of technology. DLK was a suspect of growing marijuana in his home. The United States government agents used a thermal imager from outside the home to gather evidence to issue a search warrant for the home. The results showed heat similar to heat generated from special lights used to to grow marijuana indoors. When they searched the home, they found 100 marijuana plants. In DLK’s case, the United States Government went against the Fourth Amendment with the use of a thermal imager to acquire evidence to search DLK’s house for marijuana harvesting.

On past occasions, the Supreme Court Justices have upheld takings that ultimately resulted in a private party possessing the land. This has occurred, for example, to allow the development of a plot of land that holds future benefits to the local economy, and in instances of urban renewal, where a new neighborhood goes up in place of an old and blighted one. The court case Kelo v. City of New London was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London to heed its future economic development plans. The leading plaintiff Susette Kelo, sued the city in Connecticut courts, arguing that the city had misused its power of eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?