ipl-logo

Ddk Dbq

469 Words2 Pages

Federal agents suspected DLK was growing marijuana in his home. To gather evidence they scanned his house with a device called a thermal imager. A thermal imager detects heat. The results of the scan showed abnormal heat signatures. However was that search constitutional? The use of the thermal imager violated DLK’s fourth amendment right. Even though DLK’s acts were illegal, the process of arresting him violated his 4th amendment right due to the fact that the imager goes enhances the eyes ability, the evidence was not disappearing, and the scanning reveals details that can only be found by going in a given house.
The first reason DLK’s fourth amendment right is infringed is due to the fact that the thermal imager goes heightens the eyes ability. Document D states “Thermal imaging is extrasensory and permits the police to “see” what is invisible to the naked eye.”If the use of technology goes heightens the body 's natural ability it will require citizens to take severe measures to protect privacy, and will crumble the promise of privacy in the home insured by the fourth amendment. One should not have to take irregular precautions to protect what can’t be felt, heard, tasted, or smelled due to new technologies. Moreover the fourth amendment does not require …show more content…

In document A “The Supreme Court rule that the warrantless search was valid because otherwise, Carrol might drive away and the evidence would disappear. In this case,the warrantless search was found to be constitutional.”However In this case the warrantless search was not constitutional because the evidence was not disappearing. DLK was growing more than 100 marijuana plants meaning he had a sizable business, and he would most likely grow more after selling them. The evidence was not disappearing, so there was no urgency to use a thermal image scanner, thus using the scanner violated DLK’s fourth amendment

Show More
Related
510 Words | 3 Pages

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Read More
247 Words | 1 Pages

Issue: Is the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view considered prohibited

Read More
644 Words | 3 Pages

Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1969)) • The officer who conducted search on Ybarra provided no evidence that he believe he was armed and dangerous , the search of Ybarra was a violation of his constitutional rights and the decision of the lower courts were reversed • The decision was majority 6 justices to 3, the dissenting opinions were from Justice Rehnquist , Justice Blackmun and Justice Burger they argued that the search of the bar was necessary and the case presented a different set of circumstances to the Terry v Ohio suspicion standard stating that an officer is in more danger executing a warrant than making a standard police stop on the

Read More
743 Words | 3 Pages

The majority opinion discussed the Fourth Amendment and explains now it provides the the ability to arrest individuals without a warrant when the officers have probable cause that a suspect has committed a criminal offense. During this traffic stop, the arresting officer determined a crime had occurred. It was up to the court to determine if the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle. Chief Justice Rehnquist determined that the arresting officers proved a crime occurred and there was probable cause to determine Pringle should be arrested. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, when three people are in the car where drugs are located and the owner of the drugs is not clear with no one admitting possession, it is reasonable for the officers to believe that either one or all of the occupants of the vehicle committed the offense.

Read More
739 Words | 3 Pages

This is primarily evidenced by the fact that the imager did not scan the inside of DLK’s house, nor were the officers on his property while they were operating the scanner, and finally, the police had reason to fear loss of evidence, and therefore scanning DLK’s house was not a violation of his rights. To begin, the thermal imager which police used to scan DLK’s home was not capable of viewing the inside of the house. To further elaborate, the thermal imager scans the outside of a

Read More
1019 Words | 5 Pages

In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the California Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view. Officers have the right to take any tangible items from an individual they may be frisking down at the moment if the officer has probable cause and believes that the items are related to a crime. Under the plain view doctrine, any contraband may be seized and used against an individual if it is in plain view, or in the reach of an officer; if the officer has been given permission to be in the place where the contraband is located; and if the individual has characterized suspicious behavior that led the officers to have probable cause to further retain the items in

Read More
551 Words | 3 Pages

This violated his fourth and fourteen Amendment rights. The courts made impermissible Use of the testimony even if law enforcement had reasonable suspicion. Rule of law: An individual cannot be brought to a police station and fingerprinted without probable cause or a warrant. The courts compared the cases of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721. (Investigatory detentions).

Read More
782 Words | 4 Pages

This case is freedom vs order argument. They say that the vice-principal had the constitutional right to search the bag, he had reasonable suspicion and that is the magic word that gives students expectation of privacy while balancing it with law and order of the school. The court goes on to say that he’s further not violating the constitution because once he saw the evidence, it was in plain view and theirs a plain view doctrine which is another exception to the fourth amendment which

Read More
625 Words | 3 Pages

The Fourth Amendment clearly states that the police must have a warrant to search a someone’s home and personal belongings. Though the police had probable cause, the murder they intended to find could not be located in Mr. Dexter’s car. The police and investigators searched Mr. Dexter’s car without obtaining a search warrant because they did not have enough time to get one. In the car they found a gun that did not relate to the

Read More
584 Words | 3 Pages

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

Read More
742 Words | 3 Pages

According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.

Read More
1073 Words | 5 Pages

Before the 20th century, there were few, if any, cases based on the Fourth Amendment. However, as surveillance by law enforcers became more common, these tactics, and others, were scrutinized in court cases throughout the 20th and 21st century. Within the past 50 years there have been more and more cases held to determine whether or not a citizen’s right were being violated or if authorities were within the law. Like a story with multiple timelines, the outcome of a case disputing the fourth amendment is not always clear or predictable. PII Like many of the other amendments, already established traditions of British law supported the concept of the IV Amendment.

Read More
469 Words | 2 Pages

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police deal with search and seizure incidents on a daily basis; unfortunately, numerous mistakes are made and lawsuits result from this type of citizen interaction. One way to prevent an unnecessary lawsuit is to get a search warrant. What if that is not applicable to your situation? There are several search warrant exceptions that may be applied to most investigative incidents.

Read More
545 Words | 3 Pages

Technology has advanced over the past decade, providing law enforcement officials with new ways of gathering criminal evidence. However, these tools have raised some constitutional questions. An individual from Oregon with the initials DLK was involved in a case which had people wondering if agents violated his fourth amendment rights. Federal agents suspected that DLK was growing marijuana inside of his home, which drove agents to scan his house using a thermal scanner which showed heat just like the kind that is generated by using special lights in growing marijuana. A judge then issued agents a search warrant to check the home where they found 100 marijuana plants.

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

Cell phone can unveil information within our call history, text messages, pictures, and even internet searches. Access to our cell phones is like access to our lives. No matter how much time passes, the fourth amendment continues to

Read More

More about Ddk Dbq

Related Topics

Open Document