Kyllo Danny vs. The United States Appealed From: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (190 F.3d 1041) Oral Argument: 2000 term (after Jan. 1, 2001) 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 Court so the objective of this essay is to explain the procedural history of this case and to predict a final result and the implications of that prediction. The question presented to the court is: Does the 4th Amendment protect against the warrantless use of a thermal imaging device which monitors heat emissions from a person’s private residence? As with any case, before any court, it is important to understand all aspects of a case. For example, the facts, procedural history, issues, holding(s), legal reasoning, sources of law, and values are all relevant to predicting a potential outcome as the U.S. Supreme Court sees it. The facts and procedural history of the case are as follows. On January 16, 1992, at 3:20 a.m., Sergeant Daniel Haas of the Oregon National Guard examined, from his parked car, a triplex of houses where Kyllo lived. The full nature of the examination involved the use of an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imaging device to “look” for heat generated from inside the home ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing this type of case. If the District Court Judgement is affirmed it is possible that other technological advances such as satellite photography and video will invade the privacy of Americans. If the Supreme Court holds with the trend of the United States District Court of Oregon and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals then the ultimate interpretation of the 4th Amendment will be precedent for future search and seizure cases involving technological monitoring. For this reason I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the Circuit Courts affirmation. The consequences for a reversal of the Circuit Courts decision are few. The 4th Amendment would still protect the rights of citizens. The negative aspect is that some drug dealers will go unnoticed. This is only a slight inconvenience given that thermal imaging may still be used if a warrant is obtained.
In the case cline v Berg, 273 va. 142, 639 s.E.2d 231 (2007), the circuit court ruled in favor of Berg. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's ruling and found in favor of the Clines. Berg built a surveillance system and constructed high-powered lights to observe his neighbors, the Clines. The surveillance system and high-powered lights were a distraction and a huge issue in privacy between the Clines and Berg. The Clines saw this as an issue with privacy as the Clines can pretty much be watched from the Berg residence. The Clines objected and had their attorney send a letter to Berg asking him to stop his harassing behavior and to remove the high powered lights and the cameras or a large fence would be built around the residence
In the case Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp 988 (1976), the plaintiff James Morale, who is a student at New Hampshire Technical Institute, room was entered and searched by officials representing the dorm. There was no probable cause for them to enter his room, and while there they seized what they alleged to be “purple haze”. The court ruled that a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless NHTI can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution. The search must further an interest that is separate and distinct from that served by New Hampshire's criminal law. Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
Also another fact one of the justices, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the outcome of the case. She said it was called a, “Cursory Inspection” she went on saying the officers could do the search based on reasonable suspicion that the object was evidence of a criminal activity.
... consent to the installation, this action should be considered as a “trespass” (Supreme 7). Dreeben has a weak following statement saying that it could be counted as a “technical trespass” but that would then make U.S. v. Karo a technical trespass (Supreme 7). Here, Dreeben illustrates the “but he did it too” tactic that younger kids use when they are questioned after getting in trouble. Kids say this when they really do not know what to say or how to justify their actions. Dreeben realizes that this would be considered as a trespass which would then mean that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, he tried to revert to the method of putting the blame of someone else because he struggled at justifying an opposing view towards Jones during this time. The court moves on from the trespassing issue to the topic of warrants for the GPS (Supreme 17).
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
Search and seizure in Canada has evolved into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an important asset in the legal world. The case of R v. TSE sets an important example of how unreasonable search and seizure is in Canada. An important section that relates to this case is s. 8. The main concerns with this case are whether the police abuse their powers to search and seize Yat Fung Albert Tse, the fact that when the police did enter into the wiretap they did not have a warrant and also that it is a breach of privacy without concern.
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action. This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor of the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technologic invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
They are only made to detect heat and nothing else. They don’t interfere with one's private life nor do they bring up concerns that disobey the fourth amendment. In document E. it stated, “Here the thermal imager did not detect private activity in a private place, but instead scanned a surface exposed to public view in order to detect the physical fact of relative heat.“ Document E. also specifically states that “The use of a thermal imager in the DLK vs.United States case was not a fourth amendment search.” An image from document C. showed a home through a thermal scanner. The image revealed nothing but color change between heat and the house; therefore, my point about thermal imagers and what they are able to see has been
Throughout history there have always been issues concerning judicial courts and proceedings: issues that include everything from the new democracy of Athens, Greece, to the controversial verdict in the Casey Anthony trial as well as the Trayvon Martin trial. One of the more recent and ever changing issues revolves around cameras being allowed and used inside courtrooms. It was stated in the Handbook of Court Administration and Management by Stephen W. Hays and Cole Blease Graham, Jr. that “the question of whether or not to allow cameras in American courtrooms has been debated for nearly fifty years by scholars, media representatives, concerned citizens, and others involved in the criminal justice system.” The negatives that can be attached to the presence of cameras inside a courtroom are just as present, if not more present, than the positives that go hand-in-hand with the presence of cameras.
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.