In 1991, Danny Kyllo was suspected of growing marijuana in his home Oregon police scanned his house with an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imaging device.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Politics and the Courts While the US Supreme Court is not an elected institution, many people still characterize the court as either liberal or conservative.

Advertisements

1 Where does the Exclusionary Rule Not Apply? Civil cases and proceedings Civil cases and proceedings Evidence obtained in a private search by a private.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School

By: Nicholas DeJarnette

March, – June 20, 1979 Heard at U.S. Supreme Court A Pro-Prosecution Case.

Landmark Supreme Court Case Integrated Government Mrs. Brahe and Mrs. Compton.

Historical Background Dollree Mapp was under suspicion for possibly hiding a person suspected in a bombing. Mapp refused to let the police in her home.

Ellie Ingbritsen and Rosie Parmigiani Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County et. al v Earls et. al.

Landmark Cases: Search and Seizure

Section 10.2 The Exclusionary Rule Section 10.2 The Exclusionary Rule.

Lemon v. Kurtzman by Jake Olsen. The Facts Two separate laws were at issue in this case – The Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act of 1969 – Pennsylvania.

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. DOE Argued: March 29, 2000 – Decided June 19, 2000 By Neil Fastres.

Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional 11 th Edition John N. Ferdico Henry F. Fradella Christopher Totten Prepared by Tony Wolusky Open.

Would the Founders approve?. Would the Founders allow flag-burning?

Constitutional Law Class 11: 2/1/2008 Prof. Fischer The Commerce Clause III 1995-present.

The Future of the Court Death Watch Name Born Age Apptd. President Ideology* John Paul Stevens Ford 10 William H. Rehnquist 1924.

Law enforcement officers conduct searches every day in an effort to find evidence that can be seized and used in court to prosecute people who have violated.

Vernonia School District vs. Acton (1995)

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution The Constitution was created on September 17 in It was ratified on June 21,

Ferguson v. Charleston Aaron Leavitt Law, Values, and Public Policy Spring Semester 2002.

Street Law Fourth Amendment Rights

California vs. Acevedo By: Caroline Correa & Raul Perez.

MAPP V. OHIO Rachel Simmons. Background & Freedom at Issue  The 4 th and 14 th Amendments  With reasonable suspicion of a bomb at the house, the police.

Analyzing a Court Decision An overview of Student Searches presented by Bart Fennemore.

March 12, 1989 Washington, D.C.. Background  In 1985, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) adopted regulations addressing the problem of alcohol.

1 Chapter 15 Search Warrants Search Warrants. 2 Search Warrants Search warrants fall under the 4 th Amendment Search warrants fall under the 4 th Amendment.

United States v. Jones Presented by: Rebecca Son.

2013 U.S. Supreme Court Preview Sarah Edson, Esq. Mullen High School

Crime Scene Searches Crime Scene Search Careful and methodical search Crime Scenes are 3- dimensional -floors, walls, ceilings.

Atkins v. Virginia (2002) Chandler Vaughan. Case Outline Supreme Court Title: Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) Plaintiff: The Commonwealth of Virginia.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CLASS 12 February 4, 2008 Limits on Federal Legislative Powers: The Tenth Amendment.

Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Prof. Fischer Class 16: Limits on Congressional Power to Regulate – Sovereign Immunity Feb 13, 2008.

Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Prof. Fischer Class 15 Limits on Legislative Power/Judicial Power: Sovereign Immunity and Amendment XI.

Let’s Break it Down Protection against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures Must have probable cause Must have a warrant.

Grady L. Hunt Locklear, Jacobs, Hunt & Brooks (910) The information contained in this presentation is intended for general.

Plain View Doctrine  Allows a police officer to seize evidence found in “plain view” during a search without a warrant. Also, when officers are carrying.

Crime and Due Process. There is always a question as to how we should deal with “improper evidence” in the courtroom; different nations approach the question.

CPS 82, Fall Privacy before … l Instantaneous photographs and newspaper enterprise have invaded the sacred precincts of private and domestic.

The Fourth Amendment and the Home By Laura Zajac.

Katz v United States (1967) By Timothy Vo. Constitutional Issue Violation of fourth amendment Litigants Katz, United states Fourth amendment protect people.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;

Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Class 33 Alienage Classifications Affirmative Action.

Where the Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply

4 th Amendment: Search and Seizure. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects personal privacy, and every citizen's right to be free from.

Homework: Read/OL 14.3 for Monday FrontPage: Have 3 worksheets on your desk.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

The 4 th amendment. The 4 th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported.

Constitutional Law Spring 2008 Professor Fischer War Powers II February 27, 2008.

4 th Amendment Timothy Bian, Myris Kramsch, Mazen Elhosseiny, Daniel Alday, John Scott, Kartik Raju.

{ Capitol Square Review v. Pinette Riley Poling PLS 211 Mr. John Noel December 8, 2015.

Fourth Amendment And Probable Cause. By the end of this presentation you should be able to understand; ◦Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ◦How.

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) Supreme Court Case Project Created by: Christina Dork.

Right to Privacy. » Is There a Right to Privacy? ˃Definition: the right to a private personal life free from the intrusion of government +The right to.

Facts of the Case  Two students were found smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom.  One of the students (TLO) denied smoking, so her bag was searched.

Limiting the Right of Search

Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)

Hoffman Plastic Compounds (Rehnquist w/ O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas) Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, among other things, makes.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF PROPERTY

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643.

Daily Goals Content: Literacy: Social:

B3- Olympic High School Science Camp Ethics – Case Study 1

The Fourth Amendment and the Home

New J New Jersey v. T.L.O L.O..

What Happens After Jardines?

Fourth Amendment And Probable Cause.

October 16, 2018 Modern Issues in the U.S. Agenda:

Chapter 18 Judiciary.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 1988

Rochin, schmerber & mapp

The Supreme Court Report

Presentation transcript:

In 1991, Danny Kyllo was suspected of growing marijuana in his home Oregon police scanned his house with an Agema Thermovision 210 thermal imaging device. Scans showed part of his home was significantly hotter than the rest of his house. Background

▪ Police then used that information to obtain a search warrant to search his home. ▪ Upon searching Kyllo’s residence, large amounts of marijuana plants, along with the growing equipment, were found. ▪ Police seized the plants and equipment, and arrested Danny Kyllo ▪ Case first brought before the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon where he was found guilty.

▪ Kyllo moved to suppress the seized evidence, claiming that the use of the Agema 210 was a violation of his 4 th amendment right to privacy. ▪ Case first brought before the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon where he was found guilty.

The Fourth Amendment

The Dissenting Opinion ▪ It was an “off-the-wall” observation. ▪ There was no desire for privacy, as he did not attempt to hide the heat signatures. ▪ The observations were outside of the home, and could have been obtained by watching the snow melt off the roof. The Court Opinion ▪ Qualitly or quanity of information is irrelevant. ▪ The home is private, and privacy is expected, even if the heat was not hidden. ▪ The method in which the information was gathered was unacceptable, and did not give the police the justification to use improper means.

The thermal imaging device was intrusive, as it could reveal many intimate details of the home. The Supreme Court determined the use of the device fell into a 4 th Amendment search, and thus, would require a search warrant.

The Opinion of the Court ▪ Justice Scalia wrote Opinion of the Court ▪ Justices Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined The Dissenting ▪ Justice Stevens wrote Dissenting Opinion ▪ Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Kennedy joining

▪ Sets a standard as technology becomes more innovative and intrusive. ▪ Help prevent privacy issues dealing with the 4 th amendment ▪ More difficult for law enforcement to obtain incriminating evidence.

Works cited: Carpenter, Julie. Supreme Court of the United States (accessed November 22, 2014) KYLLO v. UNITED STATES. n.d (accessed November 22, 2014) Kyllo v. United States Case Brief Summary. n.d. summary.html (accessed November 23, 2014) Weiner, William. Kyllo v. United States. n.d. ures_kyllo_2.html (accessed November 22, 2014)