Case Brief 3 - Kyllos home b Objective basis Kyllo in...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chris Jewell Jan 23, 2008 CRJ-205 Case Brief I. Kyllo v. U.S. 533 U.S. (2001) II. History: Kyllo unsuccessfully tried to suppress evidence, then moved to a guilty please of manufacturing marijuana and appeald. The USDC for the District court of Oregon again denight the suppression, and Kyllo once again appealed. The Ninth Circuit court affirmed. Certiorari was granted. The U.S. supreme court reverse and remanded. III. Facts of the case a. Acts by the government: Agent Elliot of the US department of Interior came to think that marijuana was being grown in Kyllo’s home. Since marijuana needs high-intensity heat lamps to help the marijuana grow, the agent used a Thermovision 210 thermal imager to scan the triplex in which Kyllo lived. During the scan the agent could see that Kyllo had many high intensity heat lamps in his home. Working off of informant leads, utility bills, and the thermal images the agents were able to get a warrant for
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Kyllos home. b. Objective basis: Kyllo in violation of 21 U.S.C., 841(a) (1) IV. Were the agents wrong in their actions for obtaining the thermal images of Kyllos home that were used against him to get a warrant a. Agents from the Department of Interior b. Used a Thermovision 210 thermal imager to get infrared images used to obtain a warrant c. 4 th Amendment V. Opinion a. Majority: The government decides that uses of a device that is not in general public use, to explore the details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion is a search b. Dissenting: Since what was involved in this case was nothing more than drawing inferences from off-the-wall surveillance, rather than any through the wall surveillance, the officers conduct did not amount to a search and was perfectly reasonable VI. Judgment: reversed and remanded...
View Full Document

  • Spring '08
  • Neilson
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Kyllo, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online