The use of technology have played a big role in our everyday lives and it is continuing to advance to the net level. But what happens when that technology is used against us? For the past 20 years the use of technology within the government has raised numerous constitutional questions. One question in particular was asked in the case of DLK v. United States. Agents of the government used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s house from outside. With what was seen from the imager they were able to obtain a warrant, and then make an arrest. Did use of new technology violate DLKs fourth amendment right to have an expectation of privacy in his home and body? Did the government go too far?
The government did not go too far in the case of DLK due to the …show more content…
Since the search was done from outside of the home, it did not reveal any of the activities inside of this house. (Doc. C) According to Justice John Paul Stevens, “The officers’ conduct did not amount to a search and was perfectly reasonable…”. The imager did not go through the walls of the home, therefore it was not a search and did not require a warrant. (Doc. F) The fourth amendment protects against unwarranted searches. Since they did not breach the boundaries of the property the protection does not apply. What was seen by the thermal imager was and is no different than taking a picture of the outside of someone's house.
The final reason on as to how the government did not go too far is that they have the right to use new technology available to them. With the usage of the thermal imager they were able to detect the unusual heat patterns that would coincide with the in-home production of an illegal substance. (Doc. C) When growing marijuana in your home you have to use an artificial light that produces massive amounts of heat (Doc B) and since the police had already suspected the illegal activity the pattern identified by the thermal imager gave probable cause. Which then gave reason for a warrant and then the
The government did not go too far in the case of DLK due to the …show more content…
Since the search was done from outside of the home, it did not reveal any of the activities inside of this house. (Doc. C) According to Justice John Paul Stevens, “The officers’ conduct did not amount to a search and was perfectly reasonable…”. The imager did not go through the walls of the home, therefore it was not a search and did not require a warrant. (Doc. F) The fourth amendment protects against unwarranted searches. Since they did not breach the boundaries of the property the protection does not apply. What was seen by the thermal imager was and is no different than taking a picture of the outside of someone's house.
The final reason on as to how the government did not go too far is that they have the right to use new technology available to them. With the usage of the thermal imager they were able to detect the unusual heat patterns that would coincide with the in-home production of an illegal substance. (Doc. C) When growing marijuana in your home you have to use an artificial light that produces massive amounts of heat (Doc B) and since the police had already suspected the illegal activity the pattern identified by the thermal imager gave probable cause. Which then gave reason for a warrant and then the