Search And Seizure Dbq

Search and Seizure

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued

a warrant to search the home. Agents discovered over 100 marijuana plants were being grown in DLK’s residence. They arrested DLK, yet his attorneys disagreed and said the agents needed a warrant to use the scanner. The government said they didn't. DLK’s attorneys lost the trial in a federal district court, the Court of Appeals, and then took the case to the US Supreme Court (Background Essay). The government did not go to far because it was only a thermal imager, not a search, they did not invade DLK’s privacy, and the federal agents couldn't see any activity going on inside of the home.
A thermal imager was used to detect heat inside DLK’s home which can only allow the federal agents to see excess heat.

A house produces excess heat when the artificial light that simulates sunlight creates a lot of electricity. “...it can also be a great tool to locate abnormal heat signatures [patterns] on and around buildings” (Doc B). The excess heat can be an indicator there is marijuana being illegally grown in the home. The image pictured in Document C shows the greatest amount of heat escaping id for windows and doors. This document helps the federal agents understand the issue better and demonstrates how they came to a conclusion. This image can be used for evidence to indicate where heat is escaping, and how much excess heat there is. The thermal imager only exposes the surface of DLK’s residence. “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” (Doc E). This is reasonable and did not reveal any activity inside. Therefore, scanning the home with a thermal imager is reasonable and does not require a

warrant.
The Fourth Amendment states that people have the right to be secure in their homes against unreasonable searches and seizures.

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

Constitution.
The government did not invade the privacy of DLK because they can't see what issues or activities are occurring inside the residence. Federal officers can only see where heat is escaping from the home, such as abnormal heat patterns. “...you might see unusual heat build-up that indicates a grow room” (Doc B). These are clues that the suspect could be growing marijuana. The federal agents had a limited view to the home. Hypothetically, if a person walked by the home and someone opened a door or window, they could see more of the house than the government did with a thermal imager. “Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen, or laboratory or opium den, enter the public domain when they leave the building” (Doc F). This does not invade the privacy of DLK. Likewise, no details from inside were revealed by the thermal imager. “No details regarding the interior of the petitioner’s home were revealed…” (Doc F). To conclude, DLK’s privacy was not violated and this does not overrule the Fourth Amendment.
The government did not overrule the Fourth Amendment because they only saw where heat escapes, it wasn't considered a search, and no details of activities inside the home were exposed. The government won the case because the suspect was indeed growing marijuana in his home. The scan was reasonable and the Fourth Amendment was not violated. In conclusion, this case was significant to the government and did not overrule the Fourth Amendment.