Imaging-Device-Searches-

[ad_1]

In Kyllo v. United States (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that use of a technological device to explore the details of a home that would previously have been unknown without physical intrusion is a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. The federal prosecutor argued that thermal imaging does not constitute a search because (1) “it detects only heat radiating from the external surface of the house” and therefore there was no entry, and (2) it did not detect private activities occurring in private areas because “everything that was detected was on the outside.”

The Court has ruled that plain view, plain odor, and plain touch are all constitutional. In Kyllo v. United States, the Court ruled the use of a thermal imaging device on a home was presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

Instructions:

  • 1: Articulate how the rules of criminal procedure apply to a criminal justice practitioner.
    • Explain your position regarding the ruling in Kyllo v. United States.
    • Differentiate the plain view, plain odor, and plain touch doctrines from thermal imaging devices.
    • Explore the impact of the decision in Kyllo v. United States on law enforcement.
  • 3: Apply the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments in a criminal justice context.
    • Analyze the level of legal protection for heat radiating from a private home.

    Special Instructions:

  • Create a 3 page essay in APA format according to the instructions above. Use 2 academically reviewed sources for references. Be sure to utilize in-text citations.

[Button id=”1″]

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

Comments are closed.

Order

Hi there! Click one of our representatives below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Chat with us on WhatsApp
%d bloggers like this: