Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    Kyllo v. US

    Uploaded by

    Charisse Christianne Yu Cabanlit
    The Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal imaging device by police to detect heat levels inside a home constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. While the petitioner demonstrated an expectation of privacy in the home, the use of sense-enhancing technology not in general public use to learn details inside the home that otherwise could not be detected without physical intrusion represented a search. This ensured preservation of the degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Kyllo v. US

    Uploaded by

    Charisse Christianne Yu Cabanlit
    104 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal imaging device by police to detect heat levels inside a home constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. While the petitioner demonstrated an expectation of privacy in the home, the use of sense-enhancing technology not in general public use to learn details inside the home that otherwise could not be detected without physical intrusion represented a search. This ensured preservation of the degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal imaging device by police to detect heat levels inside a home constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. While the petitioner demonstrated an expectation of privacy in the home, the use of sense-enhancing technology not in general public use to learn details inside the home that otherwise could not be detected without physical intrusion represented a search. This ensured preservation of the degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    104 views2 pages

    Kyllo v. US

    Uploaded by

    Charisse Christianne Yu Cabanlit
    The Supreme Court held that the use of a thermal imaging device by police to detect heat levels inside a home constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. While the petitioner demonstrated an expectation of privacy in the home, the use of sense-enhancing technology not in general public use to learn details inside the home that otherwise could not be detected without physical intrusion represented a search. This ensured preservation of the degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Kyllo v.

    US

    FACTS:

     Suspicious that marijuana was being grown in petitioner Kyllo's home in a


    triplex, agents used a thermal imaging device to scan the triplex to
    determine if the amount of heat emanating from it was consistent with the
    high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth.
     The scan showed that Kyllo's garage roof and a side wall were relatively hot
    compared to the rest of his home and substantially warmer than the
    neighboring units. Based in part on the thermal imaging, a Federal
    Magistrate Judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home, where the agents
    found marijuana growing.
     After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to
    suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional
    guilty plea. The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed, upholding the thermal
    imaging on the ground that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of
    privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from
    his home.
     Even if he had, ruled the court, there was no objectively reasonable
    expectation of privacy because the thermal imager did not expose any
    intimate details of Kyllo's life, only amorphous hot spots on his home's
    exterior.

    ISSUE: Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public
    use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been
    unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment
    "search," and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant

    HELD:

     Yes. The SC held here that where police obtain information about the inside
    of a home without physical intrusion, using a device not normally used by the
    public, the police action constitutes a Fourth Amendment search and is
    presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. A "search" does not occur--
    even when its object is a house explicitly protected by the Fourth
    Amendment--unless the individual manifested a subjective expectation of
    privacy in the searched object, and society is willing to recognize that
    expectation as reasonable.
     In the case of the search of a home's interior--the prototypical and hence
    most commonly litigated area of protected privacy--there is a ready criterion,
    with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy
    that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw
    protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology
    to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, obtaining
    by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior
    that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into
    a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search--at least where (as
    here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures
    preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when
    the Fourth Amendment was adopted.
     Based on this criterion, the information obtained by the thermal imager in
    this case was the product of a search. Reversing that approach would leave
    the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology--including imaging
    technology that could discern all human activity in the home.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy