American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 43–60 | Cite as

Thermal imaging and the fourth amendment:Kyllo v. U.S.

Article

Abstract

The Fourth Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. The extent to which the availability of new technology will impact this protection is an evolving area. One practice, police use of thermal imaging technology, has engendered substantial division in the courts. Recently, however, the United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in the case of Kyllo v. U.S. (2001). The Court determined that the pre-warrant use of thermal imaging machinery was a “search” under the Fourth Amendment and, thus, unconstitutional in nature. This paper traces the case development and examines the issues raised therein.

Keywords

Thermal Energy Reasonable Expectation District Court Fourth Amendment United States Supreme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Greenberg, M. L. (1999). Warrantless thermal imaging may impermissibly invade home privacy:United States v. Kyllo, 140 F.3d. 1249 (9th Cir. 1998).University of Cincinnati Law Review, 68, 151–183.Google Scholar
  2. Greenhouse, L. (2001, June 12). Supreme court bars high-tech snooping.New York Times [On-line]. Available http:// www./nytimes.com/2001/06/12/national/12 sear. html.Google Scholar
  3. Larks-Stanford, A. (2000). The warrantless use of thermal imaging and “intimate details:” Why growing pot indoors and washing dishes are similar activities under the Fourth Amendment.Catholic University Law Review, 49, 575–612.Google Scholar
  4. Springer, L. M. (1999). A far cry fromKatz: Deciding the constitutionality of prewarrant thermal imaging.Ohio Northern University Law Review, 25, 593–613.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

  1. California v. Ciroala, 476 U.S. 207 (1986).Google Scholar
  2. California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).Google Scholar
  3. Dow Chemical v. U.S., 476 U.S. 227 (1986).Google Scholar
  4. Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).Google Scholar
  5. Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967).Google Scholar
  6. Kyllo v. U.S., (2001)The United States Law Week, 69(47), 4431–4438.Google Scholar
  7. Montana v. Siegal, 934 P. 2d 176 (1997).Google Scholar
  8. People v. Deutsch, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1224 (1996).Google Scholar
  9. Pollution Variance Board of Colorado v. Western Alfalfa Corporation, 416 U.S. 861 (1974).Google Scholar
  10. Silverman v. U.S., 365 U.S. 505 (1961).Google Scholar
  11. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).Google Scholar
  12. State v. McKee, 181 Wis. 2d. 345, 510 N.W. 2d. 807 (Ct. App. 1993).Google Scholar
  13. U.S. v. Cusumano, 67 F. 3d 1497 (1995).Google Scholar
  14. U.S. v. Field, 855 F. Supp. 1519 (1994).Google Scholar
  15. U.S. v. Ishmael, 48 F. 3d 850 (1995).Google Scholar
  16. U.S. v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984).Google Scholar
  17. U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).Google Scholar
  18. U.S. v. Kyllo, 37 F. 3d 526 (1998).Google Scholar
  19. U.S. v. Kyllo, 190 F. 3d 1041 (1999).Google Scholar
  20. U.S. v. Myers, 46 F. 3d 668 (1995).Google Scholar
  21. U.S. v. Pinson, 24 F. 3d 1056 (1994).Google Scholar
  22. U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983).Google Scholar
  23. U.S. v. Robinson, 62 F. 3d 1325 (1995).Google Scholar
  24. U.S. v. Thomas, 757 F. 2d 1359 (2nd Cir. 1985)Google Scholar
  25. Washington v. Young, 867 P. 2d 593 (1994).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Justice AdministrationUniversity of LouisvilleLouisville

Personalised recommendations