In the examination of the case Kyllo v. United Sates, my opinion is that the search conducted on Danny Lee Kyllo’s triplex falls under the Fourth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional in nature. In addition to examining Katz v. United States and Karo v. United States as precedent cases, there are a number of questions that I addressed to arrive at this decision. What was the probable cause to search the triplex? How does this decision impact police power and the safety of the people? What stance will this court take on the enforcement of the Fourth Amendment? Ultimately, I hold that where the government uses a high-tech device that is not accessible to the general public for use to examine the interior of a private home, that would have…show more content… Though, it could be said that the police force and other government agencies have access to and use technology that typical citizens do not, the problem with this technology is that it ruins the core principle that a “man’s home is his castle” (Hafetz 5). The use of the thermal imager without proper issuance of warrants subjects every citizen to being monitored and searched, trampling all over the privacy each person has granted to them. There must be a distinguished line set in place to prevent such rights from being infringed. Moreover, in response to the argument that technology constantly evolving and the courts must keep up, is I believe that the use of the thermal imaging device prior to obtaining a search warrant is one of the most crucial missteps made by the Department of Interior. The use of the thermal imagining device is the equivalent to searching the house from the exterior and can be thought of as “virtual search”. Thus, in a regular scenario where a warrant is required to search the property of any citizen, the same must be applied in the use of the thermal imagining device. However, it can be argued by the opposition that the data gained from the heat map of the triplex presented probable evidence that Kyllo was illegally growing…show more content… United States, there has been a precedent sent discusses the nature of the right to privacy and legally defines what a “search” is. Acting on a suspicion that Charles Katz was sending illegal gambling wager information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents bugged the outside of public phone booth that Katz frequented with an eavesdropping device. After appeals to suppress the evidence, much like this Kyllo case, the case came to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 and found that bugging the phone booth violated the Fourth Amendment and infringed on his privacy regarding the conversations. They asserted that the Fourth Amendment protected people not places and introduced a reasonable expectation of privacy. Furthermore, from the Katz v. United States case, a “test” was created to ensure that further encroachments of privacy were prevented. The first test was determining if an individual had a subjective expectation of privacy. Secondly, it had to be determined if the expectation of privacy one that was universally. In short, using this same interpretation towards the Kyllo case, the same principle can be applied. Though in Katz the “object” being observed is sound or the voice of Katz, the heat being observed in Kyllo is analogous and subject to the Fourth
