A Brief Note On DLK Vs United States

Noah Pardi

Mrs. Hansen

Block 6

3/1/23

DLK vs. United States: Did the Government go too far?

“Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds,” said John Perry Barlow. To start, The Fourth Amendment is the amendment which protects the people and their property from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In the DLK vs United States case, DLK was growing marijuana plants in his house. The police suspected him of growing the marijuana plants. Then, the police did not get a warrant to search his house after using the heat sensor. The heat sensor revealed a lot of heat towards the top of his house. Shortly after, the police used this evidence to search his house to find

Technology can be a great aid in finding criminals, but can easily infringe on our rights. When DLKs lawyer talked about technology in everyone's lives, he mentions that, “ when technology can exceed the natural sense . . . [it] threatens the core expectations of privacy.” (Doc D). Since the technology can go beyond human capabilities, DLK felt his rights were invaded and his privacy trampled. Because of this, DLK thought the police needed a warrant to use the device on his house. A similar case also had problems with technology. Lawyers in the Katz v United States case stated that, “ . . . violated his Fourth Amendment rights, even though they did not actually enter Katz’s phone booth.” ( Doc A). Since the courts ruled in favor of Katz, all similar cases should be ruled that way because it ensures that individuals in similar situations are treated alike instead of based on a particular judge's personal views. And since the device used did not actually go in his house but was used outside his house, it still infringed on his rights because Katz's case was also ruled this way. The technology that was used was unconstitutionally and the government should have had to have a search warrant. There are two main reasons why the government required a search warrant in the DLK case, and the technology was used unconstitutionally is one

For example, they contended that it was,” . . . exterior of the perpetrators house . . .,” (Document E). Although some believe this to be true, there is considerable evidence to believe that the government did invade his right and invaded his expedited privacy. Expected privacy means that everyone doesn't have to constantly be worried of the government invading their privacy. Justice Antonin Scalia describes it as, “ to explore details of the home that previously have been unknowable. . . ,”(Doc F). The details of the house were so fine that there was no way that anyone could see them without using a device that enhances their ability. That is why everyone has expected privacy, and that everyone knows our rights are always protected and everyone doesn't have to keep guard of our rights. Expected privacy means the government should have had to have a search warrant. There are two main reasons why the Government needed a search warrant in the DLK case and the other is that he has expected