Kyllo vs. U.S.

Background- Police officers wanted to use a thermal device to scan a house that was suspected of growing weed. They wanted to use this to get evidence for a search warrant to physically search the house. After they noticed that there was unusual heat radiating throughout certain parts of his house, they were able to get a warrant for the inside. Kyllo claimed that this evidence was invalid because It violated his fourth amendment rights.

Issue- Does the fourth amendement protect someones property not only on the inside but the outside as well?

Decision- 5 to 4 decision that the police were allowed to use thermal imaging to allow a search. But the fact that they did not have a warrant to use the thermal device was unconstitutional. These devices still intrude in one's privacy because they are scanning the home itself which is their private property.

Opinion- If one has any evidence at all that a person has commit a serious felony than that should give the police the opportunity to be able to find more evidence, which includes thermal imaging or any other new technology that can be used to gather evidence. Because they are not physically in the home ultimately these people's privacy is not, on a personal level, being violated.