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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
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.
Springer, L. M. (1999). A far cry fromKatz: Deciding the constitutionality of prewarrant thermal imaging.Ohio Northern University Law Review, 25, 593–613.
Cases Cited
California v. Ciroala, 476 U.S. 207 (1986).
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).
Dow Chemical v. U.S., 476 U.S. 227 (1986).
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).
Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Kyllo v. U.S., (2001)The United States Law Week, 69(47), 4431–4438.
Montana v. Siegal, 934 P. 2d 176 (1997).
People v. Deutsch, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1224 (1996).
Pollution Variance Board of Colorado v. Western Alfalfa Corporation, 416 U.S. 861 (1974).
Silverman v. U.S., 365 U.S. 505 (1961).
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
State v. McKee, 181 Wis. 2d. 345, 510 N.W. 2d. 807 (Ct. App. 1993).
U.S. v. Cusumano, 67 F. 3d 1497 (1995).
U.S. v. Field, 855 F. Supp. 1519 (1994).
U.S. v. Ishmael, 48 F. 3d 850 (1995).
U.S. v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984).
U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).
U.S. v. Kyllo, 37 F. 3d 526 (1998).
U.S. v. Kyllo, 190 F. 3d 1041 (1999).
U.S. v. Myers, 46 F. 3d 668 (1995).
U.S. v. Pinson, 24 F. 3d 1056 (1994).
U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983).
U.S. v. Robinson, 62 F. 3d 1325 (1995).
U.S. v. Thomas, 757 F. 2d 1359 (2nd Cir. 1985)
Washington v. Young, 867 P. 2d 593 (1994).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hughes, T.W. Thermal imaging and the fourth amendment:Kyllo v. U.S. . Am J Crim Just 26, 43–60 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02886856
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02886856