Je Kyllo Case Study

982 Words 4 Pages
Register to read the introduction… In the opinion for the majority of the Court, Justice Scalia presented the following rational for reversing the lower courts ruling. In a previous case the Court had ruled that a microphone placed on the outside of a phone booth violated the Fourth Amendment. This ruling produced the Katz test. The Katz test asks the following question. “Does the individual have an expectation of privacy that is accepted as reasonable?” The Court ruled that the use of a thermal imager to view the heat coming off the walls is a violation of the Katz test. Another rational of the court is that while outside walls of a residence are in plain view, use of technology that is not in common use to view what the human eye cannot see, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens, presented the following rational to agree with the lower courts ruling. The rational is that while the use of the thermal imager is questionable, the walls were in public view and therefore, there was no expectation of privacy. The dissenting opinion makes a distinction between “off the wall” and “through the wall”. Off the wall is allowed while through the wall is not. The opinion of Justice Scalia is that this distinction is too fine for a police officer to
…show more content…
As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is needed in order to attain the proper search warrant. As technology changes, the protection of the IV Amendment narrows, thus causing ambiguity in the word “search”. Fortunately, the exclusionary rule was created to deal with evidence illegally obtained or improperly issued warrants. When this happens, a defendant can request a motion to suppress the evidence. In our case the incriminating evidence was illegally obtained through thermal imaging, therefore that evidence along with any information gained following it should not be used to convict Mr.

Related Documents