Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In Kyllo vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of sensory-enhancing technology to see through traditional privacy barriers constituted an illegal search in violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections. This article examines the history of Fourth Amendment applications involving the use of technology by government officials. The authors discuss the implications of Kyllo in light of emerging technologies available to the government as a means of gathering incriminating evidence against persons either engaging or conspiring to engage in criminal behavior. Ultimately, they argue that the Kyllo standard for the application of sensory-enhancing technology has important implications for the future of law enforcement and the ongoing fight against international terrorism.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adkins, D. (2002). The Supreme Court announces a Fourth Amendment “general public use” standard for emerging technologies but fails to define it: Kyllo v. United States. University of Dayton Law Review, 27, 245

Bork, R.H. (1991). The tempting of America: The political seduction of the law. New York: Simon & Schuster.

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986).

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988).

Carpenter, H. (2001). Constitutional law—Fourth Amendment—The warrantless use of thermal imaging technologies is unconstitutional. Mississippi Law Journal, 71, 325.

Dow Chemical v. United States, 106 S.Ct. 1819 (1986).

Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell St Trials (CP 1765).

Hardee, S.E. (2001). Why the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Kyllo v. United States is not the final word on the constitutionality of thermal imaging. Campbell Law Review, 24, 53.

Hughes, T.W. (2001). Thermal imaging and the Fourth Amendment: Kyllo v. U.S. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 43-60.

10.

Katz v. United States, 88 S.Ct. 507 (1967).

11.

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).

12.

Maria, L.A. (1998). Overview of the Fourth Amendment. Georgetown Law Journal, 86, 1187-1198.

13.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

14.

McGinnis, J.O. (1996). The once and future property-based version of the First Amendment. University of Chicago Law Review, 63, p. 49.

15.

Nichols, (2001, April). Constitutional Law, Forth Amendment search and citizens’ rights to privacy: The use of thermal imaging to measuring heat emanating from a home is a Fourth Amendment search. Cumberland Law Review, 32, 675.

16.

Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984).

17.

Olmstead v. United States, 48 S.Ct. 564 (1927).

18.

Peltason, J.W. (1991). Understanding the Constitution (12th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

19.

United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).

20.

United States v. Place, 103 S.Ct. 2637 (1983).

21.

Yuen, J. (2001). Kyllo v. United States: The warrantless use of thermal imagery devices, and why the public use standard proves unworkable. Hawaii Law Review, 24, 383.

22.

Weeks vs. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914).

Technological Innovation and the Application of the Fourth Amendment

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References