Thermal Imager Dbq Essay

The Limitations of the Fourth Amendment include hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of subject. The government did not go too far because the thermal imager did not show home activity, the evidence detected was exposed to the public view, and there could have been a loss of evidence.

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

reveal an activity but only hint towards the situation. “As still images from the infrared scans show, no details regarding the interior of petitioner’s home were revealed.” (Document F). Using a thermal imager cannot detect items within the home therefore, there is no reason for a warrant. Thermal imagers not only search the exterior of a building but also heat that is exposed to the public.
New technology makes it possible to detect heat patterns that are revealed to public view.

A thermal imager is an example of this kind of technology. “...instead scanned a surface exposed to public view in order to detect the physical fact of relative heat [escape].” (Document E). Heat escaping from a building has been exposed to public giving the government every right to use a thermal imager. “Heat waves ...enter the public domain if and when they have leave a building.” (Document F). Vented heat from the artificial lights is being exposed to the air in the public which could relate to the public safety issue.”Sometimes, the needs of law enforcement to be effective override privacy concerns. Four examples of this are: hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect..” (Background Essay). Marijuana plants could be destroyed or moved causing the evidence of a committed crime to be lost. Any Evidence exposed to public can be searched without violating the Fourth Amendment

rights.
Usage of new technologies such as thermal imagers the rights of unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment do not apply. “Police officers feel that they have strong evidence that a crime is occurring… Courts have ruled that a warrant is not required in every case.” (Background Essay). If there is reliable evidence that a crime could be happening within the amount of time it takes to get a warrant, one is not needed. “The use of the thermal imager in this case was not a Fourth Amendment search.” (Document E). In the DLK case the imager is not considered a Fourth Amendment search because it does reveal anything ithin in the house therefore, it is not a protected right in the Fourth Amendment. “That...observation does not infringe a … reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Document E). For many reasons the government did not take it too far while investigating DLK case.
Due to evidence being exposed to public, not being protected by the Fourth Amendment rights, and no searches present within the home the government did not go take this case too far.If searching with technology does not detect what’s inside or it is limit written to the Fourth Amendment a warrant is not needed. The Fourth Amendment shouldn’t limit the use of new technology in the investigations of a crime.