The Influence Of Thermal Imaging

What do you think invades the privacy of one person? What are your expectations of privacy? Well, in the case of Carroll vs The United States, Carroll was arrested in his car for carrying alcohol during the prohibition era, establishing that one did not need a warrant to search a car because the evidence can move. In DLK’s case however, the big question was if the police could use thermal imagers, to look at the heat coming out of DLK’s house without a warrant. DLK’s privacy was not invaded because a thermal imager only shows heat loss from general areas of a home and a thermal imager is available to the public, for anyone to use. Using evidence from Carroll's case, Justice John Paul Adams statement and a brief example of how thermal imaging, one can come to a superb conclusion.

You may ask yourself, “Did the government go too far with this case by using a thermal imager?” “Was a warrant required?” DLK’s house was searched because he was guilty of growing marijuana in his home, which is illegal. Then the government used a thermal imager to see from which places heat was escaping the home, and they saw many places of the home that heat was escaping the house. With that evidence they were able to prove DLK guilty and arrest him. DLK then argued that a warrant was required for the government to search his home, but the government disagreed and thought it was constitutional. (Doc .E and D) The government did not go too far with this case because a thermal imager could be used for many things not just as a conclusion, the thermal imager doesn’t reveal any specific activities in the house, the thermal imager shows heat escaping the home which is exposed to public, and heat cannot be protected.

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 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.

Thermal imagers have been used in the past primarily for war related causes. Recently, in 2001, a supreme court case was settled and would ultimately decide, the relationship between the fourth amendment and modern technology. Police officers in Oregon used a thermal imager to analyze the heat signature of a private residence. They subsequently noticed an unusual amount of heat coming from the garage of the house; consistent with marijuana growth due to artificial lightning. This evidence was used to acquire a warrant which then led to the arrest of Danny Lee Kyllo. The ultimate question that the supreme court had to answer was whether or not the use of unwarranted thermal imaging violates our fourth amendment rights (the fourth amendment prohibits

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 Patriot Act modified this so that intelligence gathering need not be the primary purpose for electronic surveillance or secret physical searches. Thus, if an official can certify that obtaining foreign intelligence is a significant purpose of a surveillance action, the other purpose clearly being criminal investigation, he can avoid the requirement that he first show probable cause of criminal activity. This makes it so that the FBI, the CIA, or any other intelligence agency, can surveil Americans without probable cause, as long as they say the surveillance has something to do with a foreign intelligence

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

Although the Fourth amendment protects our privacy and safety the government should be aloud to search our personal property with a search warrant given with a probable cause. A search in the eyes of the Fourth Amendment arises when a governmental employee or agent violates an individual's acceptable idea of privacy explains Cornell University Law school. Also, The American Civil Liberties Union says Fundamental problems say the government can not collect surveillance without probable cause. FISA amendment act signed into law by president Bush in 2008 expanded government authority to monitor Americans electronic communications claims the United states Senate Committee on the Judiciary. David Sirota Author of “Does the government actually understand

When our founder fathers were trying to determine which rights are most significant and timeless to the people, the right to be protected from illegal search in our homes and effects was one the first rights put into legislation (The fourth one to be exact). The fourth amendment protects people from being searched without justification. The word “Justification” draws debate because there are various opinions on when a search is & isn’t justified. For example, a warrant justifies a search of a specified location. The warrant must also include what law enforcement is looking for. If the police knock on your door with a warrant to search your property for a stolen car, they’ve got no reason to look in your closet. There are exceptions, however. If an officer can see something in plain view, a warrant is not required. The same goes for private businesses. If Apple wants to see who you email or call, they don’t need a warrant. All Apple customers must agree to company terms and conditions. If a person strongly disapproves of these conditions, they don’t have to buy the product, simply put. Another exception that isn’t often thought about, arrests. If a criminal is running from an officer and goes to their home, locks the

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution was created so authorities should need a warrant to search a home or property, for U.S. citizens have freedom from arbitrary governmental intrusions, and for all searches and seizures must be reasonable. Although, an officer should be able to search on the spot if they feel they have probable cause. “The 4th Amendment and the personal rights it secures have a long history. At the

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the people’s right to be secure in their persons and houses against unreasonable searches and seizures. The “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the working of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980) (citing United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)). To make a valid search of a home, under the fourth Amendment, a warrant furnished by a detached and neutral magistrate is required.

Third, the area to be searched and any item to be seized must be described with particularity (Hall, 2016.) There must be very specific information to obtain a search warrant. A warrant that authorizes a police officer to search a particular home for “unauthorized contraband” violates the Fourth Amendment (Hall, 2016.) A warrant authorizing a search of the same home is valid, provided the warrant is valid in all other respects (Hall, 2016.) The items seized must be very specific and usable items to convict the criminal of his or her actions within the act.

Unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures should not take place because it violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution by depriving the right to privacy. A search is when an individual's privacy is violated; the privacy of an individual is violated by a Government employee or agent. When a search occurs, a warrant must be present or the privacy of the individual is deprived; one’s privacy is also deprived when a warrantless seizure occurs. The seizure of property is when the government takes possession of an individual's property. Warrantless seizures of property are mostly prohibited, unless there are justifiable expectations. The Wall Street Journal stated, "you can’t have a hundred percent security and then have a hundred

The Fourth Amendment mandates that “probable cause” must be demonstrated in order for law enforcement personnel to obtain a warrant. Probable cause is obtained by law enforcement personnel proving to a judge that there is a high expectation of evidence of a crime being located upon the person, or within the location, they wish to search (Hill & Hill, 2014). Federal law does allow law enforcement to conduct a search without a warrant. The exception is for