Search and Seizure: Did the Government Go Too far? When is a search not a search? The Fourth Amendment was made to protect prevent unwanted search and seizure. Were DLK’s rights violated by using a thermal imager without a warrant? The Fourth Amendment protects citizens rights from unlawful search and seizure. In the case of DLK, the supreme court had to decide if the government went to far. The government went to far because the search violated the Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully obtaining information without a warrant. What is a thermal imager? A thermal imager is a tool that can be used to detect differences of heat on a surface. Shown in Document C is a picture of DLK’s home after the police had used the thermal imager to scan the house. The picture showed a great amount of heat escaping from the windows and doors. Explained in Document B, the heat signatures were seen as suspicious because marijuana plants need sunlight to grow, but would be seen if they were being grown near windows. DLK used an artificial light that simulates sunlight, which created a great amount of heat that needed to be let out. Some might argue that because it only scanned the outside of the house it was not invading DLK’s privacy (Document B,C). …show more content…
The right to retreat and be free in one’s home from government intrusion is in the Fourth Amendment. DLK took precaution in keeping the activities he did in his home private. He was not trying to hurt anyone or knowingly expose his activities to the public. The police used thermal imaging which allowed them to see what is invisible to the naked eye. They used technology to obtain information which could not be found using natural senses, therefore invading the privacy of people and their homes. Your home is private and any private information about your house should only be obtained through a warrant (Document
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
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.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
...cy of the things he did within his home, and the thermal imager can show things that the naked eye cannot see as document D and F-2 state. However, there are many other situations in which the government uses things that are not available to the general public such as when the police can get information of phone records and power bills while it would be much harder for any citizen to do that. DLK may also have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the things he does in his home, but the thermal imager cannot see exactly what DLK was doing in his home only the heat that was being released. Lastly, when police examine a crime scene they can use a special chemical to show any remnants of blood that was previously cleaned up which is perfectly legal without a warrant. So the it was not necessary for the police to have a warrant to use the thermal imager on DLK’s home.
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
One of the Legal Rights the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects is: The right to be free of imprisonment, search, and seizure without reasons backed by the law. “In a undisclosed school in Canada, there was a sudden police checking, in which police dogs roamed around the hallway of the school to see if there was any suspicious substance or object. During the checking, the police fo...
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
Thermal imagers do not expose heat or activities within a building.A thermal imager in this case was used specifically for detecting heat loss on the exterior of the home. “...it did not invade or reveal detailed activities (or, indeed, any activities) within the home itself.”(Document E).The Fourth Amendment protects your person and home of unreasonable searches and seizures. In the DLK case using technology to search without a warrant is not a protected right of the Fourth Amendment. “Thermal imagers do not function to read ‘heat signatures’ of persons and objects within a building.”(Document E). Using new technology cannot completely
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
When officers arrived at the living area of Johnson and his roommate, Benner Brewer, they did not have a warrant to search Johnson’s area, which violated his 4th amendment rights against a warrantless search.
Scanning a home using a thermal imager is not a Fourth Amendment search. “The officers’ conduct did not amount to a search and was perfectly reasonable…” (Doc F). The scan was also reasonable, which does not violate the Fourth Amendment. In DLK’s case, nothing was searched, and nothing was seized. “...scanned a surface exposed to public view in order to detect the physical facet of relative heat [escape]” (Doc E). Only the surface was scanned, which everyone in the general public could see. Moreover, the government does not need a warrant to scan the home because using a thermal imager does not oppose the Fourth Amendment. “As such, the imager represented a permissible means for law enforcement to gather information without previously obtaining a warrant” (Doc E). Consequently, the scan does not defy the Fourth Amendment of the
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
Law Enforcement policy is designed to help law enforcement agencies cut down on the amount of crime in communities and give structure to the agency. It also helps lessen the number of certain cases in certain areas, as well as from a certain group of people. There are several policies that I disagree with, but there is one policy I will be discussing. Law enforcement officers sometimes stop and frisk people based on gender, race, financial status, and social ranking. It is a very controversial issue because anything dealing with race and ethnicity can cause a lot of disagreement and discord. According to a New York judge on dealing with the stop and frisk laws, "If you got proof of inappropriate racial profiling in a good constitutional case, why don't you bring a lawsuit? You can certainly mark it as related . . . . I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit" (Carter, 2013, pp.4). The stop and frisk law is one reason I do not believe in law enforcement profiling. Even though some law enforcement officers allow personal feelings and power to allow them to not follow policy, some policies are not followed morally because I do not feel that officers should be allowed to frisk someone who is innocent and has not committed a crime because it takes the focus off real criminals and onto innocent people; it causes emotional stress. I know because I have been through this several times.