Kyllo V Us Case Study

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.

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

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.

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

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).)

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

The lower courts that were deciding on the case initially were the district court of Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court. The District court granted the motion that the Fourth Amendment was not violated. The Ninth circuit found that the strip search was unjustified under the fourth amendment. The circuit court later tested the qualified immunity, and discovered that the rights of the child were established at time of the search.

The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.

The Court faced the question of whether the search of Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Issue: Under the Fourth Amendment, was the warrantless search consented by Rojas allowed, even though Fernandez had previously objected to it, and if so, does Fernandez have standing in the matter, even though not physically present during the consent of his co-tenant?

The court concluded that the seized of his belongs indeed violated his constitutional rights. The decision made it clear that any evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure would not be allowed in court. (The Oyez Project, 2014)

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

If marijuana is to be grown inside it must have some source of intense ultraviolet light to aid it. Haas did indeed locate a high heat source in Kyllo’s home with the Agema 210 and noted that Kyllo’s home “showed much warmer” than the other two houses in the triplex (Find Law). This indicated the presence of lights used to grow marijuana. This information was forwarded to William Elliot, an agent of the United States Bureau of Land Management. Elliot had already subpoenaed Kyllo’s utility records as Kyllo was already under investigation for the production of marijuana. With the information gathered by the use of the Agema 210, Elliot “inferred” that the high levels of heat emission indicated the presence of high intensity lights used to grow marijuana indoors (Find Law). Elliot presented this information to a judge and was issued a search warrant. In searching Kyllo’s home the Bureau of Land Management found more than one hundred marijuana plants, weapons and drug paraphernalia. Kyllo was then indicted for manufacturing marijuana and filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it was obtained illegally in accordance with the 4th Amendment. The district court denied Kyllo’s motion to suppress and he entered into a conditional guilty plea. Kyllo was sentenced to prison for 63 months. Kyllo appealed the denial of the suppression of motion, challenging the warrantless scan of his

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

The thermal imager detected heat radiating from the exterior of petitioner’s house, and it did not invade that home or reveal detailed activities (or, indeed, any activities) within the home itself (Document E). Is a thermal imager really a ‘search’? The government did not enter DLK’s home but did invade his privacy by detecting information that is not necessarily public.