ipl-logo

A Brief Note On DLK Vs United States

752 Words4 Pages

Noah Pardi
Mrs. Hansen
Block 6
3/1/23

DLK vs. United States: Did the Government go too far?

“Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds,” said John Perry Barlow. To start, The Fourth Amendment is the amendment which protects the people and their property from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In the DLK vs United States case, DLK was growing marijuana plants in his house. The police suspected him of growing the marijuana plants. Then, the police did not get a warrant to search his house after using the heat sensor. The heat sensor revealed a lot of heat towards the top of his house. Shortly after, the police used this evidence to search his house to find …show more content…

Technology can be a great aid in finding criminals, but can easily infringe on our rights. When DLKs lawyer talked about technology in everyone's lives, he mentions that, “ when technology can exceed the natural sense . . . [it] threatens the core expectations of privacy.” (Doc D). Since the technology can go beyond human capabilities, DLK felt his rights were invaded and his privacy trampled. Because of this, DLK thought the police needed a warrant to use the device on his house. A similar case also had problems with technology. Lawyers in the Katz v United States case stated that, “ . . . violated his Fourth Amendment rights, even though they did not actually enter Katz’s phone booth.” ( Doc A). Since the courts ruled in favor of Katz, all similar cases should be ruled that way because it ensures that individuals in similar situations are treated alike instead of based on a particular judge's personal views. And since the device used did not actually go in his house but was used outside his house, it still infringed on his rights because Katz's case was also ruled this way. The technology that was used was unconstitutionally and the government should have had to have a search warrant. There are two main reasons why the government required a search warrant in the DLK case, and the technology was used unconstitutionally is one …show more content…

For example, they contended that it was,” . . . exterior of the perpetrators house . . .,” (Document E). Although some believe this to be true, there is considerable evidence to believe that the government did invade his right and invaded his expedited privacy. Expected privacy means that everyone doesn't have to constantly be worried of the government invading their privacy. Justice Antonin Scalia describes it as, “ to explore details of the home that previously have been unknowable. . . ,”(Doc F). The details of the house were so fine that there was no way that anyone could see them without using a device that enhances their ability. That is why everyone has expected privacy, and that everyone knows our rights are always protected and everyone doesn't have to keep guard of our rights. Expected privacy means the government should have had to have a search warrant. There are two main reasons why the Government needed a search warrant in the DLK case and the other is that he has expected

Show More
Related
519 Words | 3 Pages

Gates counsel argued that law enforcement lack of sufficient probable cause for a warrant was a fourth amendment violation. The decision of the Trail Courts, was upheld by The Appellate Court. The court used the example of Spinelli v. United States,

Read More
364 Words | 2 Pages

(https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-carpenter) So the question is still open to debate. Did the police officers volatile Timothy 4th amendment and should that throw the ruling of the court? Or should the case go on because Timothy didn't know his right and gave up the information freely. You

Read More
496 Words | 2 Pages

The 4th amendment states that the right to privacy should not by violated by conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. In the hudson v. Palmer case, an inmate named Russel Palmer sued Ted Hudson who was an officer at the Virginia prison. Palmer stated that the officer had conducted a shakedown of his locker and cell in the attempt to find hidden contraband. After the search turned out to be unsuccessful, Officer Hudson, then charged Palmer for destroying state property, as they found a ripped pillow case in his cell. Ted Hudson won the case, as the court stated that the right to privacy does not apply within a prison cell.

Read More
560 Words | 3 Pages

The ruling was made on the case by the New York State Supreme Court upon frivolous litigation. Issue Under the New York’s Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, does the plaintiff have a valid claim for violation of his right to privacy? Holdings

Read More
567 Words | 3 Pages

Katz v. United States, is a United States Supreme Court case discussing about "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search". Charles Katz lived in Los Angeles and in 1960’s he was the leading basketball handicappers in the country. Charles Katz used a public telephone in Los Angeles, California to place illegal gambling bets with gamblers in Miami and Boston. The FBI tapped the specific phone by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth used by Mr. Katz and they were able to listen about the Katz illegal bets.

Read More
1082 Words | 5 Pages

2. Furthermore, Justice Alito agreed with the court concluding that the installation and use of the GPS device constituted a search. 3. Justice Alito continues to agree with the court by saying, “we must assure preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was

Read More
674 Words | 3 Pages

A different federal judge ruled that if the DEA wishes to use a stingray to bring in a criminal then they must have a warrant to use it [source]. The argument that a lot of people will make when it comes to surveillance is that if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide. If we apply that same logic to this specific case, then we might as well say that the government should be able to put a unique tracking device on each one of us that we must always carry around. Many people would probably no want to be constantly tracked by the government openly, so why should we be okay with tracking us whenever they want, just without announcing it? We are afforded legal protections for most other private areas in our lives so why should we have almost no rights when it comes to something that we depend on and use every day?

Read More
742 Words | 3 Pages

These actions did not go by what was established by an earlier, similar case, and by performing the scan with no warrant, the government did not allow DLK to conduct private activities in his own home. Although some argue that the government’s actions were acceptable because they only scanned what was visible to the public, they still used a device not readily available to the public to see inside DLK’s home. The government’s actions were unacceptable, and a warrant should have been obtained prior to performing the search in order to make it

Read More
217 Words | 1 Pages

The fourth amendment protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure. In order for a search and seizure to happen the police have to have evidence in order to get a warrant which allows them to search the citizens luggage, house, etc. In some cases the government may go to far, or invade privacy of others, but in this case the government didn’t go to far and this is proven in DLKs case, thermal imager, and heat image. In DLKs case he was taking reasonable expectation of privacy in the activities he was doing in his home.

Read More
1452 Words | 6 Pages

This particularly concerns the Fourth Amendment. Epstein delves into the evolving world of surveillance, whistleblowing, and government secrecy from the public. This offers an informative examination of the tension between the government's duty to protect its citizens and the citizens' right to privacy. The book dissects notable events such as the Edward Snowden revelations, shedding light on the constitutional implications of mass surveillance programs and their impact on Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Epstein highlights how the expansion of surveillance capabilities has challenged traditional notions of privacy.

Read More
541 Words | 3 Pages

The “Nothing-to-Hide Argument” Analyzed: In this rhetorical analysis, I will be taking a look at Daniel J. Solove’s essay “The Nothing-to-Hide Argument,” which is about privacy in the context of personal information and government data collection (Solove 734). Solove’s main argument in his essay is that the general public has a narrow perception of what privacy really is. The purpose behind his main argument is to expose the problems with the nothing-to-hide argument while presenting a way to challenge it for his target audience, government officials. Solove’s argument to his target audience is effective through his exemplary use of substance, organization, and style in his essay.

Read More
1129 Words | 5 Pages

Lastly the fourth amendment gives protection to the person during a search and it prevents unlawful items taken or seized to be used evidence in a case. (Searches and Seizers and the Fourth Amendment) The fourth amendment also doesn’t protect everything. One of the only time that a person is not protected under the fourth amendment is when that person consents to the search. Under the law that person who consented, so the people in authority didn’t need to get a search warrant and anything that the person authority finds can be used against them in court.

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

To begin, we need to understand the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment was created to prevent the government from breaching into our homes and convicting us of crimes based on evidence they discover within our homes. It was vital to state unreasonable searches in the constitution, and an unreasonable search is a search done without

Read More
752 Words | 4 Pages

Electronic surveillance is also under the Fourth Amendment, so the law enforcement cannot watch you with any type of electronics of any sort. Furthermore, your personal items: backpack, house, or phone are considered your property so the law enforcement can search any of them without the citizen’s permission or proved as reasonable. Although of all of the advantages of the Fourth Amendment, a disadvantage is that for the law enforcement it makes accumulating evidence

Read More
75 Words | 1 Pages

In Clarke’s paper of privacy and why privacy is important, he stated that we as individuals have different reasons on why it is important to them; for psychological reasons, we as individuals need private space; for sociological reasons, we need to be free to act without being constantly observed; for economical reasons, we need to be free to discover and revolutionise; and lastly for political reasons, we need to free to think, argue, and act.

Read More

More about A Brief Note On DLK Vs United States

Related Topics

Open Document