In the Constitution it is seen that the government is able to extend the meaning behind the amendments. Do they manipulate it beyond their powers to their advantage? In this case it may be taken too far and be deemed unconstitutional. DLK says his fourth amendment was taken away when the police used a thermal imager to convict him of an accused crime without a warrant. Did the government take this too far? The government exceeded their limitations of the fourth amendment as seen in previous cases and with the use of advanced technology, then a couple Supreme Court Justices’ opinions will be analyzed. The limitations become more clear about when a warrant is required. When given the background information on DLK’s case we see that the courts…show more content… United States and Katz v. United States we see to different outcomes due to the Fourth Amendment (Document A.) In 1925, Carroll v. United States, The government believe Carroll was selling alcohol during the prohibition. They chased after him, after finding him driving on the highway. They then proceeded to pull him over searched his car, found liquor and arrested Carroll. He believed it to be unconstitutional as they did not have a warrant. Taft ruled that a warrant was not needed because of the risk of loss of evidence. As an end result, the warrantless search was seen as constitutional (Document…show more content… In DLK’s case a thermal imager was used to obtain evidence without in his home without a warrant and without the suspects permission(Document D.) DLK did not intentionally expose his crime to the public. Since the federal government has more advanced technology today it is more difficult to protect our privacy without taking it to extreme measures. Thermal imagers should require a warrant before being used.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, who judge the matter at hand constitutional or not, we see that in some cases the government was right not to use a warrant but that does not mean they won't try to take things too far to convenience themselves. In the verdict we see two opinions between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Scalia claims that the use of the device to investigate details within the home that would not be known without going in the home (Document F.) Justice Scalia also says that “surveillance is a search and is unreasonable without a warrant” (Document
