The Truth About 4th Amendment Rights The government and how the people perceive the laws and rules of the land have differed for many years, nor have there been many agreements when it comes to the Amendments especially the fourth Amendment. The right to have privacy and without a warrant shall not be searched or seized. With the fourth Amendment, there is always controversy because of the different viewpoints and perceptions of the nine exceptions to the Amendment. This is clearly demonstrated in the case Kyllo(DLK) vs United States(2001). DLK ended up being found with marijuana after being searched and seized from an issued warrant. While this is fine the controversy comes from the main evidence to obtain the warrant, which was pictures …show more content…
taken from a thermal imager, pictures of heat signatures, which in his eyes and the eyes of many people is considered to be unconstitutional, but the truth is the government was in the right to use the thermal imaging without consent from a judge. This comes from the fact thermal imaging can be considered as plain view which is one of the nine exceptions, also thermal imaging should not be considered a fourth Amendment search, and a statement coming from the respected Justice John Paul Stevens in support of the government's use of the imager. The initial and most obvious reason to why the government is in the right to use thermal imaging to take pictures is DLK’s house was in public view and the officers who took the pictures were also on public property only looking at the house through a lens. For example the thermal imager only “Scanned a surface exposed to public view in order to detect the physical fact of relative heat [escape]”(E) This quote indicates the scan does not look into anything more than the outside of the house which is plain view. Also, according to the nine exemptions of the fourth Amendment plain view is anything the government official can see in front of them and anything the public is able to see as well. Although many would argue the use of a thermal imager would not be considered plain view because it is not something perceived with the five natural senses this argument is invalid because though not many people possess a thermal imager it is able to be bought in many places making it available to the public. Overall demonstrating the thermal imager may not be the use of the natural senses, but anyone can have one. This also can be said with hearing aids and contact lenses although these are different because they do not enhance the senses, only bring them to the norm they can be seen in the same light as a thermal imager because if anyone can get one then a thermal imager can also become the norm. Which means since anyone in the public can have this tool it can be considered plain view to only look at a house with a tool everyone can have. Proving the government and the officers are in the right to use thermal imaging because it is only looking at the outside of the house which is in a public place and can be seen by the public with a tool anyone in public can have and use. Furthermore, the use of the Thermal imaging not only is part of the nine exemptions, plain view but is also not a fourth Amendment search for many other reasons.
For example, the imager only detected the heat signatures from “The exterior if the petitioner’s house… it did not invade the home or reveal detailed activities within the home.”(E) Once again demonstrating plain view, but also demonstrating the true essence of a search, understanding what goes on inside of the building, while the officers who used the scans did indeed see heat which came from the inside of the house they did not and could not look inside the actual building itself, but only the exterior. This further proves the scan did not show anything private inside of the private household. Which is what a search is for to see and understand what is going on privately, and what the fourth Amendment is protecting. The fourth Amendment is used to protect the person's private information also the right to “be free in one’s home from unreasonable government intrusion is at the very core of the Fourth Amendment.”(D) This represents the meaning of the fourth Amendment is to allow people like DLK to be free inside of their own homes. Although the scan did see the outside the scan did not intrude on such freedom, as it does not give any information to what happens in “one’s home” because the scan cannot see inside of such home. In addition, the fourth Amendment does not protect places but people and what people will share with the public is not protected by the fourth Amendment. Which shows DLK has no intention of not sharing the information of the heat outside of the house and with the house being a place it is not protected by the fourth Amendment and looking at this information is not considered a search. Also many may argue he may not have known about the heat, but the fourth Amendment also states that what he seeks to keep private in a public place is protected, but DLK did not know about the heat
emitted from the lamps he grows the marijuana from. In conclusion, showing the use of the thermal imaging is not considered to be a fourth Amendment search and there is nothing protecting DLK’s rights to this public information in the fourth Amendment. Finally, the thermal imaging alone did not give the officers a warrant to search the house, but there was other evidence proving to why DLK was to be searched and this leads us to the quote coming from Justice John Paul Stevens, it “is not only unprecedented but also difficult to take seriously”(F) This demonstrates how the arguing of thermal imaging being unconstitutional is not only pointless, but an overall waste of time. With this one can come to the reason DLK’s argument has nothing to do with his protections and his privacy, but keeping him out of a jail cell. Also, John Paul Stevens statement introduced the fact the government's acts were not only allowed but should not be argued. Also stating “Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or in a laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain.”(F) Which clarifies the heat waves being emitted from the lamps to grow marijuana is no longer even a private matter because of the fact it went into a public area further demonstrating the irrelevancy of DLK’s argument. Overall revealing Justice Stevens testimonies on the topic prove the pointlessness of DLK’s argument. To conclude, the United States’ view of fourth Amendment searches is correct and the viewpoints of DLK is in the wrong with the United States not going too far in this case and many other cases holding to the nine exceptions one being plain view which they held themselves fairly too. Also, the overall case should not have even been thought of as fourth Amendment search due to the heat being in public and the pictures taken from the public. Overall demonstrating the flaws and overall uselessness of the DLK’s case, to begin with, represented by the venerated John Paul Stevens. Lastly, proving the Government did not exceed their boundaries and the expectations of the fourth Amendment.
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
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 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.
Abraham Lincoln became the United States ' 16th President in 1861, delivering the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy in 1863. If there is a part of the United States History that best characterizes it, is the interminable fight for the Civil Rights. This he stated most movingly in dedicating the military cemetery at Gettysburg: "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "The Declaration of Independence states “All men are created equal”.
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.
...level and not to the state level (once again undermining state government authority). For these reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in this case was one of the most controversial decisions at that time. Up until this decision was made, police in many states had ignored the search and seizure law.
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
The Fourth (IV) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses paper, 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" (U.S Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Legal Information Institute). The fourth amendment is a delicate subject and there is a fine line between the fourth amendment and 'unreasonable search and seizure. '
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
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
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.
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.
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.