Dk Dbq Analysis

742 Words3 Pages
According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan. The government’s actions were not constitutional, because they did not follow the precedent case, used technology that exceeded human senses, and violated DLK’s right to privacy in his home.…show more content…
By using a thermal imager to access information about the inside of DLK’s home, the government technically performed a search. What they were able to see was not the same as what the general public was able to see. The government defended their actions saying that they ‘scanned a surface exposed to public view.’ (Doc E) However, the inside of DLK’s home was not exposed to the public, and he was not aware that the government w in possession of technology that was able to exceed normal human senses. According to Justice Scalia, the device was ‘not in general public use.’ (Doc F), Along with that, the areas the government scanned were not all in public view, as the inside of DLK’s home was generally inaccessible to the public. There are only four times when a search can be performed without a warrant: hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss to evidence, and permission of the suspect. While some may argue that DLK could have packed up the marijuana or destroyed it, the chances of that are very slim, and it most likely could not be done in the time it takes the government to get a…show more content…
These actions did not go by what was established by an earlier, similar case, and by performing the scan with no warrant, the government did not allow DLK to conduct private activities in his own home. Although some argue that the government’s actions were acceptable because they only scanned what was visible to the public, they still used a device not readily available to the public to see inside DLK’s home. The government’s actions were unacceptable, and a warrant should have been obtained prior to performing the search in order to make it

More about Dk Dbq Analysis

Open Document