Utilizing the case studies of Katz, Jones, and Kyollo test, this paper reflects on the understanding of how law enforcement advancement in protocols influences the public’s view on government’s expectations of security and protection under the Fourth Amendment permissibly diminishing the scope of the rule. This paper does examines the cases of Katz “expectation of privacy,” Jones establishment of reasonability, and Kyllo pre-warrant searches to gather data to perpetuate the need for a warrant. By identifying areas where certain doctrines allow for warrantless search and seizure and are the possible reasonability and law enforcement foresee-ability to obtain a warrant form to search. This paper attempts to correlate and identify …show more content…
United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) the FBI was under the suspicion that Katz was conducting illegal gambling bets. In order to collect evidence for confirmation the FBI placed an electronic listening device on a series of telephone booths that Katz have been seen utilizing. While listening through a series of recording FBI learned that Katz was speaking in code and was easily deciphered, which led them to the evidence the FBI needed to arrest and persecute.
The issue of the case Katz v. United States is the placement of listening devices on a telephone booth without warrant is unconstitutional under the exclusionary ruling. Secondly, though the listening device did not go into the booth to intrude on Katz privacy the collection of the information violated his expectation of privacy inside the physical phone booth. The utilization of a listening device infringed on Katz’s Fourth Amendment protection as unreasonable search and …show more content…
United States, US Agent was suspicious that Kyllo was growing weed in his house. From the public street, he took a thermal imaging picture and decided the differences in temperature, emanating from the roof, were definitely marijuana growing. Justice Harlan's two criteria are first; did the person manifest a subjective expectation of privacy in the heat or thermal energy leaving the home? Second, if the person manifested an expectation of privacy in the heat escaping the home, is this expectation of privacy one which society is willing to recognize as reasonable? (Hughes, 2001) Justice Scalia's majority opinion concluded that police use of a heat-detection device to identify a house in which marijuana was being grown indoors constituted an impermissible warrantless search of the house (Davies, 2010). The US is prosecuting marijuana grower, Kyllo, for growing marijuana but obtained their main evidence, a thermal image picture showing heating discrepancies consistent with marijuana growing, without a warrant. In this case scenario, both the subjective and objective privacy elements are satisfied and a state actor intrudes, a "search" has occurred and the Fourth Amendment protections are implicated (Hughes, 2001). The US agent got a warrant and found over 100 plants through a simple image taken from a public location. For instance, in Artz explanation of data gathered that much like a short observation of a car and a check of the license