Backround:
There was suspicion that Danny Kyllo was growning marijuana in his house. To gather more information, the government flew a thermal-imaging device over his house to detect high-intensity heat spots that are commonly caused by the heat lamps used to grow marijuana. The imaging showed that there were high-intensity spots, and the government proceeded to get a warrant to search Kyllo's house. Through the search, they found that he indeed was growing marijuana and was federally charged.
Issue:
Is it a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment right to use an air-bound thermal-imaging device to detect amounts of heat radiating from a person's house?
Decision:
5-4
The Court decided that the means by which the information was obtained was an unwarranted 'search' and was therefore against Kyllo's Fourth Amendment rights.
M - Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer
D - Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy
Opinion:
I completely agree with the Court's decision. The use of flying the thermal-imaging device over his house is not a 'plain sight' action; it's not something that's in the general public use, and therefore is more intrusive on a person's privacy, thus requiring a warrant. Along with this idea, the fact that the government was using this device "to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion" further demands that a warrant should've been issued beforehand. A person can't just tell if an unsusal amount of heat is radiating from a home without either using a special device or going into the home, so any further exploration other than simply using something that is in general public use constitutes as a 'search'.
No comments:
Post a Comment