The Case Of Kyllo V. United States

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.

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search

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).

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

One reason the government did go too far is that there was no warrant to prove the agents could use the thermal imager and to scan DLK’s property. Evidence related to this

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 Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution applies to a person and their home by providing protection against unreasonable seizures and searches. While it provides protection, not every search and seizure can be deemed unreasonable unless it is classified as per the law, by determining whether there was: a) the level of intrusion of the individuals Fourth Amendment, and b) whether or not it pertains to the government’s interest, such as safety of the public.

The counterargument to this case is the government did go too far with this case. The thermal indeed does show more then you could with the natural senses. This counts as a search. When you use your natural senses you definitely wouldn’t be able to see which areas of a home was escaping heat, and that

In the case of Kennedy V. Louisiana Patrick Kennedy was found guilty in raping and sodomizing his eight-year-old stepdaughter in a Louisiana courtroom. Mr. Kennedy refused to plead guilty and stated the crime was committed by two young boys from the neighborhood. He was convicted sentenced to death 2003. On March 2nd 1988 the victim sustained severe injuries; the injuries required emergency surgery because the rape was so brutal. Louisiana law authorized capital punishment for the rape of a child twelve years and younger. Mr. Patrick Kennedy challenged his sentence under the eighteen amendments as cruel and unusual punishment. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined the challenged that the death penalty was not too harsh for such a wicked crime. In a Supreme Court decision Coker v. Georgia 1977 the United States Supreme Court concluded that capital punishment for rape of an adult women was not applicable if the victim is a child and if it did not result or contemplated in result of a death. The court discussed a number of Supreme Court case related to child vulnerability and the death penalty. In the case of Roper V. Simmons the court ruled that the death penalty could not be applied to a person if the crime was committed when they were under the age of eighteen. In another case, Atkins V. Virginia the death penalty could not be placed on a mentally ill person. The petitioner Kennedy argued that in all these cases they do not establish conformity.

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.

The district court’s holding that allowing ambiguity to defeat apparent authority would unreasonably burden police officers by forcing them to clarify the consenter’s authority over every container within the area they were permitted to search should be upheld as it is one that is supported by persuasive precedent from a sister circuit of this Court. See United States v. Melgar, 227 F.3d 1038, 1042 (7th Cir. 2000). In Melgar, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit uses Supreme Court precedent to support the position on ambiguous apparent authority stated above. See id. (citing Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)). The Seventh Circuit states the Supreme

Analysis: There was much controversy with this case because police officers did enter an apartment with no warrant. Since there were no bystanders or other evidence except the police officers and the tenants involved it was very difficult to come out with a verdict. Of course the police officers stated that there were exigent circumstances occurring before they enter the apartment and the tenants states that there were no exigent

The Fourth Amendment is clearly broken in the case of Weeks v. United States, it was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means

While advancements in technology are continuously on the rise, so are the concerns of how they will affect the privacy the fourth amendment protects. The question of how modern technology will violate the natural rights of the people can not only be asked by society, but also by law enforcement officials. Officers would have to distinguish the surveillance techniques that contravene the law of privacy from those that do not. In the case Kyllo v. United States (2001), the police used a thermal scanner to read the heat signatures given off by Kyllo’s house. Their intent was to find abnormal heat patterns, search the home, and therefore confirm their suspicions of marijuana growth. While they were successful in finding illegal activities being

Curtilage is the area directly around one’s home and an area used for domestic purposes in connection with a dwelling (Hall, 2015). Open fields are property located outside the curtilage and the Fourth Amendment does not protect them, so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (Hall, 2015). It is sometimes difficult to determine where curtilage ends and open fields begin, therefore the Supreme Court utilizes these four factor in the determination of an open field beginning with the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage from the home, whether the area is enclosed is enclosed with the home, the nature of the use of the area, and the attempts of the residents to keep the area private (Hall, 2015, p. 429). These concepts are important