Did the government go too far Essay

Over time, technology has impacted the law and other law enforcement agencies with raw devices for gathering evince. These new tools develop ca employ complete questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) provoke such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his collection plate. Agents exercised a thermic imager to s layabout DLKs residence form the external. The results indicated heat, just resembling the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant a legal paper authorizing a search cannot be issued unless there is a cause, and a potential cause must be sworn to by the police officer or prosecutor and approved by a judge.A warrant must describe what is being searched and what will be seized. 100 marijuana plants were found finalizing the arrest of DLK however, did the scan violate DLKs 4th Amendment rights? The Fourth Ame ndment states, The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasoncapable searches and seizures, shall not be go against, and no Warrants shall be 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 (Constitution). This amendment touches on the chance of privacy in your kin and person. The government is not unable to search you, your home, your belongings, or take your belongings, in any case known as a seizure, without a good reason. A persons Fourth Amendment rights may at times seem to persist the world of law enforcement. If the police feel that they standCornacchia 2 right on evidence of a crime that is occurring it seems obvious that they would want to act on that evidence without having to take the time to get a warrant. Courts have control that a warrant is not required in every case. Sometimes, the needfully of law enforcement to be effective override privacy concerns, but why have privacy rights if they will not be active? I dobelieve that the government went too far. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the domain, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment surety (Stewart). catalogue A shows a 1967 case, Katz v. United States, where federal agents placed a hem in on the outside of a public phone booth that Katz had been using. A bug is a device that allows them to listen in on conversations.It accumulated evidence that led to Katz being convicted to gambling charges. Katz appealed, arguing that the recordings could not be used because they were acquired without a warrant. The court ruled that agents did in fact violate his Fourth Amendment rights, even though they never actually entered Katzs phone booth. A persons Fourth Amendment rights could still be worked against even when the police are not physically searc hing a place. In relation to the DLK case, the scan was able to be done without the actual need of being in the home however, But what he seeks to keep as private, even in an area convenient to the public, may be constitutionally protected (Stewart). Without the use of the thermal imager, the public would have been able to catch this with the naked eye. This was an invasion of privacy. DLK did not call back for this to be seen therefore, the government did go too far.Cornacchia 3Thermal visualize cameras convert infrared energy into a visual display, as shown in Document C. The image is a house seen through a thermal scanner. The greatest amounts of heat, which is represented with the color white, generally escape through the windows, doors, and few parts of the walls and roof. These areas of the house usually lack insulation which helps supports DLKs unintended release of evidence. If he was aware that his privacy was going to be violated by this high tech technology, Im sure we can suggest that he would have acted upon that problem. This document illustrates just how invasive technology can be therefore, the government did go too far. Your home is where you should have the most sense of protection and where your privacy should be most respected.In fact, it is supposed to have the most degree of protection of the Fourth Amendment. Document D helps emphasize the unknowingness of the exposure of DLKs conduct to the public. The advances in technology have far surpassed what can be noticeable withoutthe use of them. When technology can exceed the natural senses, it subverts the human ability to throw private matters in a normal way and threatens the core expectation of privacy in the home (Document D). Although the imager was able to be used from the outside of the house, it still violated the privacy of what was on the inside. Document F states, In this case, the government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home t hat would previously have been unknowable without going in, the surveillance is a search and is unreasonable without a warrant (Scalia).Thermal imagers cross the line of protection of the home and should be used only when authorized by a warrant therefore, the government did go too far.Cornacchia 4Now that new technology is changing the work force, we must consider things that we never have had to before. Although it offers many new advantages, it also places stress and questions on our Countrys Fourth Amendment. When the government uses a method that would help provide reading on a case that, in the past, could have been only upheld by entering the home of someone, then the method violates a persons rights and a warrant must be required.