In my opinion, I
believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision because even though the
agency did not physically intrude Kyllo's house, they still used a device that
the public is not allowed to use normally. If the police had been watching
Kyllo's building or something of that sort, then it would be legal. Using a
thermal-imaging device is technically invading Kyllo's privacy by finding out
information about the inside of his building which is private to Kyllo. A
precedent that helps explain my case is the case California v. Ciraolo. In that case the Santa Clara police
department received an anonymous tip saying that Ciraolo was growing marijuana
in his backyard. The police could not see into Ciraolo's backyard because of a
high fence that surrounded the yard so they flew a plane 1,000 feet up in the
air to spy on Ciraolo instead. The flying plane confirmed there was marijuana
in the backyard and the police then received a search warrant and arrested
Ciraolo the next day when they went to his yard. Ciraolo pleaded guilty but the
Court of Appeals said that the use of the flying plane was illegal and reversed
Ciraolo's conviction. The Court ruled 5-4 in favor for California saying that
the aerial space being used by the plane proved that there was no violation of
the 4th Amendment and that it was not intrusive. This was compared to how
people do not have to close their eyes when they see houses on public streets
or sidewalks so flying in public air space is the same thing. This helps
explain my opinion because by using a device to gain information about the
inside of Kyllo's building, the agency was violating the public property rule
by going theoretically inside private property.
My Opinion
I believe that using the thermal imaging did violate his 4th amendment right to privacy. Based on Katz vs. United States, information not obtainable through a routine search cannot be obtained without a warrant. In Katz's case his phone calls were wire tapped so the police could listen in on his conversation. The police could not have obtained that evidence with technology and therefore made the search unreasonable. Again we see technology being used to find special information in Kyllo's case, yet that search of his house was unreasonable; "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant," said Scalia while speaking for the majority. Therefore, the search was in fact unreasonable.
I believe that using the thermal imaging did violate his 4th amendment right to privacy. Based on Katz vs. United States, information not obtainable through a routine search cannot be obtained without a warrant. In Katz's case his phone calls were wire tapped so the police could listen in on his conversation. The police could not have obtained that evidence with technology and therefore made the search unreasonable. Again we see technology being used to find special information in Kyllo's case, yet that search of his house was unreasonable; "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant," said Scalia while speaking for the majority. Therefore, the search was in fact unreasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment