Home » lyles » Kyllo v. United States

Kyllo v. United States


1 Comment

  1. Deleted userNov 9, 2016
    Holding:
    5-4
    The use of a thermal-imaging device to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private home violates the Fourth Amendment.

    Majority Reasoning by Justice Scalia:

    “The Government uses a device that is not in general public use”.

    “The surveillance is a ‘search’ and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant”.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 7, 2016
    Argument for Kyllo

    The use of a thermal imaging device, which is not generally used by the public, to obtain evidence inside a home is considered an unreasonable search without a warrant under the fourth amendment.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 4, 2016
    Danny Kyllo was suspected of growing marijuana in his home in Florence, Oregon. The US Department of Interior monitored his home with thermal imaging cameras to detect heat levels associated with high-intensity lamps used to grow marijuana. Based on the data from the cameras and Kyllo’s utility bills, federal agents searched Kyllo’s home and found 100 plants; Kyllo tried to suppress the drug charges under the 4th amendment protection from unlawful searches.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userDec 1, 2015
    Justice Scalia made an interesting point that technology will only advance, making cases like these more complicated. Technology will be so common, that maybe it won’t even be considered an invasion of privacy but a social norm.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 15, 2015
    In current news of police spying on citizens…
    “Chicago cops conducted unauthorized spying on protesters”
    http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1096951/chicago-cops-conducted-unauthorized-spying-protesters
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 11, 2015
    I had initially been pleasantly surprised that Antonin Scalia wrote this opinion, but in reading some of these other cases that we have, it seems to me that he’s actually kind of a fan of the Fourth Amendment. At any rate, the reasoning used here–that new technology is inherently more intrusive than old technology–is a little bit scary. A person in 1900 would have been baffled to hear that you would be able to reach into your pocket and access the wealth of Human Information in seconds, and we don’t necessarily have a particularly good idea what measures of surveillance will be used against us (err, sorry, TO PROTECT US) in the future.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 11, 2015
    I was pleasantly surprised by the Court’s ruling. Similarly to the opinion, I view the use of the thermovision as more intrusive in comparison to regular surveillance, and I also agree with the reasoning that such a method is not widely available for public use. Even if the Court ruled that the thermovision was reasonable, I would not agree that heat signals necessarily give probable cause for a search of a suspected growing house. While it may spark suspicion, there would have to be more definitive supplementary evidence for the reason that it is not unheard of for people to grow legitimate plants in their home with the help of halide lamps.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 12, 2014
    The government might as well go 1984 and install surveillance cameras in every corner of our so called private home and everyone can accept that the only privacy you have is in your mind. Or we should live based on the assumption that we can always be watched, especially if you’re doing something illegal.
    GB
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 12, 2014
    The fourth amendment is to protect persons and their stuff, not their privacy… With this in mind…. I conclude that if someone can see into your house from outside, then you are not unconstitutional. If the government is prying though, and looking into your home say with thermal heat imaging… perhaps this is an infringement just like tapping the phone from (Katz v united states) where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Perhaps the thermal imaging thing should have been warranted before use.

    Matthew J Payauys
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 12, 2014
    This guy was still growing marijuana, thus still breaking the law. The police acted on a search warrant where they legally obtained evidence. I think the “good faith” exception should apply here. -L. Trujillo
    Reply

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 250 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

css.php