Kyllo v United States Case Essay

Kyllo v United States
Title and Citation
Kyllo v United States
http//caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/533/27.html
Facts of the case
The police arrested the defendant (Kyllo) for growing marijuana in his home. The police officers used thermal technology, which is an uncommon tool to detect heat coming from his home from their car across the street.
The thermal technology is an uncommon tool to the general public. The police officers did not get a warrant to do this. The use of this technology should not be used to further obtain a search warrant for his home, it violates the defendants Fourth Amendment rights.
After the findings of excessive heat coming from the home, the police obtained a search warrant to search the home of the defendant. The police cited that there was probable cause to obtain a search warrant. Upon entering the defendants home they found marijuana and the equipment to grow marijuana. Kyllo was charged on federal drug charges. The defendant argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because using thermal technology was an unreasonable search, it violated his privacy.
The defendant wanted the evidence suppressed, which the judge denied in the trial court. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the conviction and returned it back to the trial court. The district court ruled that thermal imaging was not a Fourth Amendment search. The Ninth Circuit decided that it was a search. Then returned the case again to decide it there was enough evidence for probable cause. The Ninth Circuit reheard the case and agreed with the trial court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
Does the Fourth Amendment cover using a thermal imaging device as a search? Is it an invasion of privacy using equipment from across the street to support probable cause for a search warrant of the home?
Decisions
The court decided NO the thermal imaging does not constitute a search. Yes, the courts decided that it was an invasion of privacy using the thermal technology. They did not think it was right to use technology to see what was happening in the privacy of the defendants home. They concluded that you would need a warrant to use the thermal technology.
Reasoning
The court agreed 54 that Kyllo's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Thermal imaging was in violation of the defendants Fourth Amendment rights. Obtaining information through technology really not used by the public is an intrusion and unconstitutional.
Separate Opinions
Majority Justice Scalia, Justice Souter, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer
This technology is an uncommon tool not known to the public. It is considered unreasonable without a warrant and violates the Fourth Amendment. It is reasonable to expect privacy inside your home.
Dissent Justice Stevens, Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy
The future of this type of technology should be considered as surveillance. No Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The defendants privacy was not violated.
Analysis
The court used the Katz case to