Kyllo. V United States 533 U.S.

27 (2001)

• 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

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.

Background

▪ 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 4th 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 right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Arguments

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 Decision• 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 4th Amendment search, and thus, would require a search warrant.

The Final Vote: 5-4, In Favor of Kyllo

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

Impacts

▪ Sets a standard as technology becomes more innovative and intrusive.

▪ Help prevent privacy issues dealing with the 4th amendment

▪ More difficult for law enforcement to obtain incriminating evidence.

Works cited:Carpenter, Julie. Supreme Court of the United States. 2003. http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/kyllo_amicus.pdf (accessed November 22, 2014) KYLLO v. UNITED STATES. n.d http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/99-8508#writing-99-8508.ZO (accessed November 22, 2014) Kyllo v. United States Case Brief Summary. n.d. http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2014/05/kyllo-v-united-states-case-brief-summary.html (accessed November 23, 2014)

Weiner, William. Kyllo v. United States. n.d. http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/publiced_preview_features_kyllo_2.html (accessed November 22, 2014)