Kyllo vs. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) INTRODUCTION: In Kyllo vs. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), the police, believing there to be a marijuana set-up in the defendant’s place of residence, acquired a warrant to ascertain this for certain through use of a thermal-imaging scan. The scan, which was conducted outside the premises and measured heat signatures on the building relative to other residences in the same triplex. This brought the question of unreasonable search and seizure before the Court, but more significantly, the question of where the line should be drawn regarding the use of new advances in technology. FACTS OF THE CASE: Police, suspecting that the defendant, Kyllo, was growing substantial amounts of marijuana inside his unit of a triplex residence, scanned the units from outside by means of a device that measured heat signatures. This provided information on the amount of heat originating within the residence. The thermal scan revealed that a portion of Kyllo’s roof and wall had higher temperatures relative to other areas of the building, being …show more content…
As the device could not be used to penetrate walls and listen to conversations or observe conversations or activities, but only revealed hot spots on the outer walls, it was only observing the outside of the residence. Upon appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the thermal imaging evidence was acceptable on grounds that there had not been any expectation of privacy. This determination was made because Kyllo had not attempted to hide the release of heat from his residence and even if he had made an effort to conceal the thermal signatures, there would have been no expectation of privacy as it did not render visible any protected details of life within the residence (Justia,
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
On June 26, 2006, a Sheriff Officer of the State of Florida, William Wheetley and his drug detection dog, Aldo, were on patrol. Furthermore, Officer Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of the defendant Clayton Harris for expired tags on his truck. As Officer Wheetley approached the truck, he noticed that Harris was acting nervous/anxious, more than he should have, and he also noticed an open can of beer in the cup holder next to him. At that moment, Officer Wheetley knew that he was hiding something, he requested to search
Fred Korematsu was born in the U.S. in 1919. His parents were born in Japan. Since he was born in the U.S. he was a citizen. He grew up like a normal kid in California. As he grew up, his life was normal, until the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1942.
I believe this United States Supreme Court case is particularly important because it ultimately defends a person?s Constitutional right to privacy. As stated before, until this decision was made, the search and seizure laws were given little consideration. Although there is always an exception to the rule, for the most part, evidence that is obtained in a way that violates a person?s Constitutional right is inadmissible in Court. This decision has most definitely refined the laws of the admissibility of evidence and the procedures followed by those in law enforcement.
Mann (2004) is another precedent setting Supreme Court case, whose main issue dealt with search and seizure laws that infringed upon Phillip Mann’s rights that are guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The issue that was brought before the court was if the investigative detention against Mann was a violation of his section 8 Charter rights, which states that “everyone has the right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure”. The purpose of the search was to determine if Mann was in possession of illegal weapons because it so happened to be that he was in the same place a crime scene investigation for a burglary was happening and coincidentally matched the suspect description. While police were searching Mann, the officer felt a soft bag in Mann’s sweater pocket. Even though the officer was aware they were only investigating for weapons, the officer intentionally pulled out the bag of Marijuana and arrested Mann immediately. This case went to the Supreme Court, where the court stated that “investigative detention was definitely reasonable given that Mann matched the suspect description and was close to the crime scene, but it was not done for valid objective because the cops could only search for officer safety- once soft object was felt, there was no risk (i.e was not a gun)- ultimately determining that the officer should not have pulled the bag out of Mann’s pocket, resulting in the Supreme Court ruling that the search
Rivera, 445 Mass. 119, 833 N.E.2d 1113 (2005). In Rivera, a convenience store’s surveillance camera recorded a violent robbery. The victim refused to open the register despite several demands by two masked robbers. The robbers then left the store and the victim pursued them. One of the robbers then shot the victim and fled the scene. Id. at 1116. Similar to Rivera, Dr. Knowles’s camera was installed by a private party for security purpose, but the court held that the convenience store’s recording was not secretive because the surveillance camera was in plain view, where a person is likely to know they are being recorded. Id. Relying on this decision, the police department may distinguish their case by arguing that even if cameras are installed for security purposes, they are a violation of privacy if not apparent to the public. See also Commonwealth v. Jackson, 370 Mass. 502, 349 N.E.2d 227, 339 (1976) (“It is clear that the Legislature intended that the statutory restrictions be applicable…to the secret use of such devices”). The police may argue that the state-of-the-art eye equipment was not detectable. Since it is a webcam from a private investigation firm, it is meant to be undetected by the naked
Forensic science has now been recognized as an important part of the law enforcement team to help solve crimes and cold cases. The advances in technology are being used each day and we must continue to strive to develop better advances in this field. The recent discovery of using DNA in criminal cases has helped not only positively identify the suspect, but it has helped exonerate hundreds of innocent individuals. “With new advances in police technology and computer science, crime scene investigation and forensic science will only become more precise as we head into the future.” (Roufa, 2017) Forensic science and evidence helps law enforcement officials solve crimes through the collection, preservation and analysis of evidence. By having a mobile crime laboratory, the scene gets processed quicker and more efficiently. Forensic science will only grow in the future to be a benefit for the criminal justice
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.
For decades, Law Enforcement agencies has relied on the many creations, and implementations of new technology to assist in producing effectiveness. The 1900’s was a time that intensified the capability of solving crime. But as technology continues to evolve, so will the possibility of deterring crime, and successfully apprehending suspects nationwide.
New types of technology have made it easier to track down and catch criminals. Then also made it easier for prosecutors to gather and present more credible information. Some new technology that has made it easier to track down criminals or help provide more reliable and supportive evidence is things such as DNA testing, computer technology, fingerprinting, and GPS tracking devices. “The main strengths of technology in the criminal justice system lie in the provision of databases which allow better and more efficient records to be stored and retrieved” (Bean 370). Prosecutors now in sense have “…an infallible test of truth, a foolproof method, of determining the accuracy and reliability of evidence and hence of convictions” (Pallaras 72). These 4 technological advancement...
...ditional visits to the crime scene could cause a compromise if entered into evidence at trial.
The process of gathering evidence largely depends on the role of discretion by the police. Once police have decided to pursue a reported crime, they then begin the process of gathering evidence. To ensure that the process of gathering evidence is lawful, the police must follow the procedure outlined in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), which describes the manner in which evidence can be collected. This act imposes certain limits on the way police can gather evidence and the types of evidence that can be used. The Act is able to protect the rights of citizens by making it a requirement for the police to gain necessary legal documentation, such as search warrants, in order to obtain some types of evidence and thus, protects the rights of ordinary systems. In more recent times, the use of technology has come to play a major role in the gathering of evidence and with this comes complications in the law. New technologies in relation to the criminal investigation process are mainly in reference to DNA evidence, genetic material that can place a suspect at the scene of a crime. The introduction of DNA evidence into the criminal investigation process has been extremely effective in achieving justice, as it is able to secure convictions. Initially, there were some setbacks to the use of DNA evidence
The use of computers in law enforcement has, in many cases, been a great idea.Officers can use the computer to store information, analyze particular objects found at crime scenes, and help in collecting information about criminals as well as victims.Some departments have begun to invest in automated fingerprint identification systems and a national program of mug shots for wanted fugitives.A department can also use computer related technology to set up surveillance of telephones, cars, street intersections, and other areas of interest around their jurisdiction (Osterburg and Ward 611-620).
“Each light has a different preset wavelength designed to detect hair, fibers, and body fluids at crime scenes, these lights allow a crime scene to be processed faster and more thoroughly than ever before.” This technology is speedy and can help locate the whereabouts of criminals. The use of in-car camera systems has become very popular, especially by law enforcement. These cameras are used to record traffic stops and road violations of civilians. “From the time the first in-car cameras were installed to document roadside impaired-driving sobriety tests, the cameras have captured both intended and unintended video footage that has established their value. Most video recordings have resulted in convictions; many provide an expedited means to resolve citizen complaints, exonerate officers from accusations, and serve as police training videos.” Photo enforcement systems helps to maintain road safety by “automatically generating red light violations and/or speeding summons and as a result to greatly improve safety for the motoring public.” (Schultz,