The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
... 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 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action. This action applies to conduct by government officials such as police, firemen, or an individual hired as a private actor of the government. After the first criterion has been met, the court must determine whether a search or seizure has occurred. A search is defined as the physical or technologic invasion of an area deemed by the majority of the court to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These places could be homes or a closed telephone booth depending on the circumstances of the incident. A seizure occurs when the government takes one's personal belongings or the individual themselves.
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...
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
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
The controversy in this case was did the search and seizure of Terry and the men he was with violate the Fourth Amendment? This case tried to determine the role of the Fourth Amendment when police are investigating suspicious circumstances on the street, and when there is probable cause to search someone that is displaying questionable behavior (Justia, n.d.).
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
One controversial aspect of the Fourth Amendment is of how courts should seize evidence obtained illegally. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” However, it does not explain clearly what an unreasonable search or seizure is and in what cases a police officer should take caution when searching or seizing a suspect. As cases arose in which defendants brought these questions into court, the Supreme Court decided it would need to establish rules which the federal government would implement so that the government doesn’t abuse/overlook the people’s rights in due process. The controversial issue from the Fourth Amendment, which some may regard as implied, but others may regard having a broader meaning, comes from the Exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule was created by the Supreme Court and says that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be used against a person in federal court” (Great American Court Cases 360). The Exclusionary rule is considered just because it protects the people’s constitutional rights from being violated and provides a check on the power of law enforcement and state courts.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that individuals have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and impacts, against absurd searches and seizures, yet the issue close by here is whether this additionally applies to the ventures of open fields and of articles in plain view and whether the fourth correction gives insurance over these also. With a specific end goal to reaffirm the courts' choice on this matter I will be relating their choices in the instances of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which bargain straightforwardly with the inquiry of whether an individual can have sensible desires of protection as accommodated in the fourth correction concerning questions in an open field or in plain view.
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 this paper, I will discuss and give details as to what is needed for police to get a warrant and under what circumstances they are allowed to enter a home without a warrant. I will also provide an analysis as to whether the police had the legal right to access the Ellis home and their bedrooms. Additionally, I will explain the exclusionary rule and its importance and how it relates to this scenario. Lastly, I will also describe the steps in conducting this investigation while ensuring that individual’s rights were being protected and the evidence that was gathered would be admissible in a court of law. In the following paragraph, I will discuss what it takes for the police t...
Scalia wrote the majority opinion using the rationale of the “physical intrusion” theory of the Fourth Amendment that he had advanced in United States v. Jones (2012). Scalia stated that custom typically permits a visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock, wait briefly, and then, absent of invitation to stay, leave; it does not allow a visitor to engage in investigative activity such as bringing a trained drug dog onto someone’s front porch and allowing it to sniff around. The main reason that the dog sniff was a violation of the Fourth Amendment is because the court found that the front porch was in fact part of the home, limiting the ability of police to be involved in investigative like activity on the curtilage of a home. The curtilage at common law was defined as the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life. Common law takes us back to medieval England and means the law common to the entire land, while these were not the only sources of law it introduced judges as interpreters of law
They are only made to detect heat and nothing else. They don’t interfere with one's private life nor do they bring up concerns that disobey the fourth amendment. In document E. it stated, “Here 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.“ Document E. also specifically states that “The use of a thermal imager in the DLK vs.United States case was not a fourth amendment search.” An image from document C. showed a home through a thermal scanner. The image revealed nothing but color change between heat and the house; therefore, my point about thermal imagers and what they are able to see has been