Essay about Laws Governing Unmanned Aircraft: A Literature Review

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

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”.

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

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

The Fourth Amendment provides protection against illegal policing by, barring searches that are “unreasonable” and without the justification of “probable cause.” In relativity, once individuals’ rights have been violated and the evidence is obtained illegally, and trialed at court, The Exclusionary Rule can be applied to assist a Defendant in a criminal case as a remedy for illegal searches that violate the rights set forth in the Fourth Amendment. When applicable, the rule dictates that the evidence illegally obtained must be excluded as evidence under the Fourth Amendment. One important corollary to the Exclusionary Rule is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. This rule holds that, in addition to the material uncovered during the illegal search being in admissible, any evidence that is later gathered as an indirect result of the illegal search will also be excluded (Wong,1963).

United States v. Antonie Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, (2012) is a case where Defendant came under suspicion of trafficking with narcotics. Agents installed a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of his wife’s vehicle while it was parked in a public parking lot. Over the 28 next days, the Government used the device to track every single movement of the vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Government’s installation of the GPS device on defendant’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, was constituted a “search”. Under the common-law trespassory test, the Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. Such a physical intrusion would have been considered as a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was originally adopted. Defendant possessed the vehicle at the time the Government trespassorilly inserted the information-gathering device. Although the Government forfeited its alternative argument that officers had reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the conviction was overturned. In this case the Supreme Court announced that a warrant is required to track a suspect through GPS systems. Regardless of the car being in public or private property, a warrant is needed to be able to intrude someone’s personal property; in this case the defendant

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 major constitutional issue this case deals with is the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially

On November 8, 2011, there was an oral argument in the Supreme Court for the case of United States vs. Jones. Antoine Jones was arrested on October 24, 2005, for drug possession. Prior to detainment, police had attached a tracker to the undercarriage of his wife’s jeep without any formal judicial approval. The law enforcement then used this to follow the movements of the car for about a month. The question that arouses during this case was if the warrantless use of the tracker on Jones vehicle violated his fourth amendment rights.

What constitutes as legal search and seizure has been a long debated topic in American history. The varying complexities of different modern day situations compete with the views of the Founding Fathers as expressed in the Constitution, often leading to fierce court battles over what violates individual rights. Take DLK, an Oregon citizen suspected of growing marijuana in his home. Federal agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence from outside, which revealed heat typical of special lights used for indoor marijuana growth. This information allowed agents to obtain a search warrant, discover marijuana plants, and arrest DLK. However, the legality of the thermal scan has been much debated due to the nature of its usage. Federal agents’ thermal imaging of DLK’s residence did not violate DLK’s Fourth Amendment rights, as

This ruling will undoubtedly become more important as states and municipalities consider bills that would hold harmless property owners who may damage a drone flying over their private property. The current presidential administration’s public

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which tends to have certain exceptions as well as set guidelines for LEOs on their power and how they can conduct searches, and laws that would prevent against unreasonable search and seizures that can be made of a person’s property or seizure of contraband. Within this paper, it will look at the exception to the Fourth Amendment, and related cases that will address warrantless searches by LEO, with hopes that by the end of the paper we will have a better understanding of our rights under the Fourth Amendment.

This case involve issues addressed under the Fourth Amendment, i.e. the evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment may not be used as an evidence. So the main issue in this case is that whether an evidence obtained via unreasonable searches and seizures can be used in trial at courts.

While the debate over the use of drones for counterterrorism efforts has intensified, the arguments, both for and against their usage, although informed by plausible logics, are supported primarily by anecdotal evidence and not by systematic empirical investigation. This lack of attention is unfortunate: unmanned aerial vehicles, and

The recent technology in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) also known as drones is developing its function in providing delivery services for companies. It is a type of aircraft that is operated by ‘pilots’ that control it from the ground; this does not require on board crew or passengers. Through the development of this technology, concerned people lead into tons of issues about this type of delivery system. The purpose of this report is to provide potential solutions using the application of the management function, planning. This will cover how planning management function approach will further progress and resolve the demands of this technology.