Thermal Imager? Warrant Needed or Not?
By: Kirti Daga 7th grade Period 5 Mr. Haycraft English Class and Period 6 Mr.Bedell Social Studies Class
Imagine taking pictures outside a house versus using a thermal imager to capture images. It has no difference. Technology often changes faster than the law, and now thermal imaging technology is available at fingertips. Thermal imaging is one of those common pieces that declare improving visibility of objects in an environment, based on the source of heat. Yes, of course humans use it when necessary because now it counts as an everyday use. In modern court cases, thermal imagers have become controversial because it leaves citizens thinking about whether or not do they violate the 4th Amendment and…show more content… United States”, the phone transmitting case was overruled by the court because Katz inserted a bug in a public phone booth, to reveal information of one (Document A). Although this is a great argument, what it fails to consider is that the information from the call booth was not revealed for public use which means that it did protect the person and nowhere in the 4th Amendment it states that a person can be protected which includes the public places, for example, a phone booth. The thermal imager being used in any case is not shabby enough to blame a vitamin since it is constitutionally protected. According to the Carroll vs. United States, “The 4th Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even his own home or office, is not a subject of 4th Amendment protection, but what he seeks to keep as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected (Document A). DLK's activities had to be kept private because if a person knowingly reported the activities without a warrant would be illegal, but if a person intends to keep these things private the 4th amendment protects them, which means not too much information could have been revealed about this case (Document…show more content… According to Document E, the property was not invaded because the thermal imager only detected heat resource information, not the activity that was being performed in the house itself. Also in Document F, Justice Steven’s opinion is the fact that a thermal imager is not a search because it has no different than taking pictures of a house outside, which only covers walls. This means that the tool did not violate the 4th Amendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
