High-tech Snooping Threatens Our Privacy
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
The right of the people to be secure in their person's houses, papers, 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.
The Fourth Amendment values privacy in the home and protects people's privacy from unlawful search and invasion.
This topic interests me because I am concerned about the recent use of thermal imaging and the ways it could be used to invade the average citizen's privacy. Thermal imaging devices allows police to view heat as a visible light image. When police use this technique as a means of gathering evidence before a warrant is obtained, it can be said to violate our guaranteed Fourth Amendment rights under the Constitution.
In the recent Supreme Court case, Kyllo v. United Sates, "the Supreme Court held that police use of a thermal imaging device to scan a suspect's residence violated his right under the Fourth Amendment. The decision had reversed a federal appeals court ruling finding the scan lawful" (Is warrantless?).
In the case cited, police suspected Kyllo was growing marijuana in his home. They used a thermal imaging device from across the street to scan Kyllo's home to see if the level of heat escaping from it was consistent with high-intensity lights used to grow marijuana indoors. The result of the scan showed that portions of Kyllo's home were relatively hot compared to the rest of his home. Using the result of the scan, as well as other information, police obtained a warrant to search Kyllo's home, and found a marijuana-growing operation in their search.
When the trial court refused to suppress the evidence, Kyllo appealed to the federal court and challenged the legality of the search, saying a search warrant should have been obtained prior to using the thermal imaging device. Law-enforcement officials argued that a warrant was not required before a using technological surveillance device that merely records information about a home that is exposed to public view.
The federal appeals court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Kyllo had no subjective expectation of privacy because he did not try to conceal the heat escaping from his home. Even if he had, the appeals court said, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the thermal imager did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life, only vague hot spots on his home's exterior.
In the case cline v Berg, 273 va. 142, 639 s.E.2d 231 (2007), the circuit court ruled in favor of Berg. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's ruling and found in favor of the Clines. Berg built a surveillance system and constructed high-powered lights to observe his neighbors, the Clines. The surveillance system and high-powered lights were a distraction and a huge issue in privacy between the Clines and Berg. The Clines saw this as an issue with privacy as the Clines can pretty much be watched from the Berg residence. The Clines objected and had their attorney send a letter to Berg asking him to stop his harassing behavior and to remove the high powered lights and the cameras or a large fence would be built around the residence
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
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
... consent to the installation, this action should be considered as a “trespass” (Supreme 7). Dreeben has a weak following statement saying that it could be counted as a “technical trespass” but that would then make U.S. v. Karo a technical trespass (Supreme 7). Here, Dreeben illustrates the “but he did it too” tactic that younger kids use when they are questioned after getting in trouble. Kids say this when they really do not know what to say or how to justify their actions. Dreeben realizes that this would be considered as a trespass which would then mean that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, he tried to revert to the method of putting the blame of someone else because he struggled at justifying an opposing view towards Jones during this time. The court moves on from the trespassing issue to the topic of warrants for the GPS (Supreme 17).
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.
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 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.
The system of checks and balances in the United States government is exceptionally important in maintaining a balance within the three most powerful branches of government. The concept of checks and balances is that no one branch of government is able to get out of control without a neighboring branch of government having the power to intervene. Although the Constitution does not specifically reference a system called checks and balances, the instructions of how power is to be distributed is clearly defined. The three primary branches of government that are directly influenced by checks and balances are the Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, and Judicial Branch. Each of these branches has specific limitations and strategic override power making it essential that there is some form of cooperation and compromise. The interworking of this system is most apparent in the creation of laws.
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.
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.
Officers conducting a warrantless search without suspicion of criminal activity from the probation officer. The original search conducted discovered controlled substances, but the warrant did not include Robert Johnson, only Bennet
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." "At the very core" of the Fourth Amendment "stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion." Silverman v. United States. The only probable cause exist in this case is the is the melted snow on the roof, Which can explained lots of other things, and the amount of heat on the wall which does not justified enough proof for the probable cause. The use of an instrument to validate the amount of heat consumed inside the house is an intrusion of privacy. Moreover, this concept is an opinion based
As mentioned this movie takes place in the 80s, more specifically 1987. A large portion of the film takes place in upscale clubs or expensive restaurants. It is set in New York City as the viewer follows around the main character Patrick Batemen. In the film P...
As technology penetrates society through Internet sites, smartphones, social networks, and other modes of technology, questions are raised as the whether lines are being crossed. People spend a vast majority of their time spreading information about themselves and others through these various types of technology. The problem with all these variations is that there is no effective way of knowing what information is being collected and how it is used. The users of this revolutionary technology cannot control the fate of this information, but can only control their choice of releasing information into the cyber world. There is no denying that as technology becomes more and more integrated into one’s life, so does the sacrificing of that person’s privacy into the cyber world. The question being raised is today’s technology depleting the level of privacy that each member of society have? In today’s society technology has reduced our privacy due to the amount of personal information released on social networks, smartphones, and street view mapping by Google. All three of these aspects include societies tendency to provide other technology users with information about daily occurrences. The information that will be provided in this paper deals with assessing how technology impacts our privacy.