Technology Cases - Is it a search?

Question 1

Kyllo v. United States (2000)

Issue, Holding

Answer 1

• Issue: Whether the police’s use of a thermal- imaging device to scan a home constituted a search under the 4th Amendment
• Holding:
  1. Yes it is a search
  2. Using technology during a surveillance will be deemed a “search” if law enforcement obtains information “that could not otherwise have been obtained without a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, at least where…the technology in question is not in general public use.”

thermal imaging device case

Question 2

Why it is a reasonable expectation under Kyllo v. United States

Answer 2

• There are limits upon the power
  of technology to shrink the realm
  of guaranteed privacy
• A good check is whether the
  technology is commonly used
• 4th Amendment doesn’t care
  about the quality of the
  information obtained.
• 4th Amendment draws a firm line
  at the entrance of the house –
  requires clear specifications of
  these methods of surveillance
  that requires a warrant

Question 3

United States v. Jones

Issue, Holding

Answer 3

• Issue: Whether the government’s installation of a GPS device on a suspect’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movement, constitutes a search?
• Holding: It’s a search – “government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information”

GPS tracking device on car case

Question 4

Why was it a search in US v. Jones?

Answer 4

1. look at what the 4th Amendment protected
2. No doubt such a intrusion would have been considered a search when amendment drafted
3. Car= an effect
4. No need to consider a GPS case that doesn’t involve tresspass now

Question 5

Significance of US v. Jones

Answer 5

• Two ways to get to a search: physical intrusion and/or Katz standard
• Something may not start as a search but add up to a search

Question 6

Riley asks

Answer 6

if a single member of socity can position themselves in that place without breaking the law

EX. FFA regulations

Question 7

Kylllo test

Answer 7

1. using tech not in general public use
2. aimed at house/curtilage

Question 8

Karo case - beeper in container of chlorofoam in car

Answer 8

1. the owner allowed it to be in it
2. ok on public road, but not inside the home

Question 9

Carpender v. United States (2018)

Holding

Answer 9

• The search of cell phone data histories is a search that triggers 4th amendment protection
• reasonablle expectation of privacy over bodily movements (prolly yes over long period of time, prolly no for a short period of time.)

bank robbers, cell phone towers

Question 10

The third party doctrine

smith remains, but carpender carves outan exception for

Answer 10

cell phone location records, the privacy interest in cell phone location data outweights the third party doctrine

Question 11

Process of going through carpender v. united states

Answer 11

1. who is doing the action
2. what is the police conduct
3. trespass
4. reasonable exception of privacy
5. 3rd party doctrine

Question 12

Flordia v. Jardines (2013)

issue, holding

Answer 12

• Issue: Whether a police officer walking to the door of a home with a police dog and allowing the dog to smell amounted to a search
• Holding: Police officer trespassed onto the property and was therefore a search

drug sniffing dog case