Kyllo Case Summary

A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money. Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.

In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

The development of technology was an unforeseen source of dispute in interpreting and applying the Constitution. Technologic aid in investigating crime and gathering evidence is often up for debate, particularly in the context of the Fourth Amendment. In the case at hand, petitioner Chester Comerford seeks to suppress evidence of his involvement in drug manufacture and distribution on the basis of a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) made use of warrantless IMSI tracking to establish probable cause for a later warrant. For a number of reasons to be addressed, the FBI did not need a warrant to obtain this information, and thus the evidence shall not be suppressed. The court should uphold Comerford’s conviction on the basis of the following discussion.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. The common misconception is that it simply covers what it states. In the age of development and new technology, it is likely that what we consider secrets or personal information is not as secret or personal as we once believed. Important pieces of evidence or information have often been found through illegal means, and this has led to many cases that change the way the constitution and the Fourth Amendment affect

Depending on the context, search warrants are a controversy for example; when entering a residence with the correct procedures that the law enforcement officer makes. To get a warrant, officers need consent and signed paper from the judge and with the state attorney. Overall there is the fourth amendment that safeguards the protection of the people and the right to issue a warrant with probable cause.

Before taking a look at this case, think about the following questions. Do students have the same rights under the 4th amendment as adults?, What are students’ rights while being searched on school grounds?, and What guidelines do administrators and teachers need to follow as a result of New Jersey v. T.L.O? The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O involved two freshmen high schoolers who were caught using narcotics in the restroom by a teacher. The teacher took the students to the principal who then asked the students about the incident. The principal tried to make them confess to possessing marijuana but only one of the two girls came out as guilty and took the consequences. The other girl, T.L.O, however decided to plead herself as being innocent of any such crime.

The question before us is whether the medical examiner found a match between Kelbel and Kailyn Montgomery’s bodily conditions.

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.

The case that I have found to write about is the case of Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins and the New York Police Department in New York City which happened in September of 2013. This case was originally tried in the state of New York court in New York City. It was based on the fact that a NYPD cop didn’t properly fill out a search-warrant application that turned up a weapon as well as a handgun and a cocaine cache. Unfortunately, Mr. Wiggins is an accused drug dealer with a prior record and he may likely walk due to “a technicality.” Therefore, the New York City Police Department as well as the New York City police union were very upset because a dangerous person may be back on the streets due to a supple mistake.

Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.

Federal agents suspected DLK was growing marijuana in his home. To gather evidence they scanned his house with a device called a thermal imager. A thermal imager detects heat. The results of the scan showed abnormal heat signatures. However was that search constitutional? The use of the thermal imager violated DLK’s fourth amendment right. Even though DLK’s acts were illegal, the process of arresting him violated his 4th amendment right due to the fact that the imager goes enhances the eyes ability, the evidence was not disappearing, and the scanning reveals details that can only be found by going in a given house.

Reasoning: The police without a warrant or probable cause removed a subject from his home and transported him to the police station, where he was not free to go, although he was there briefly for questioning, In addition fingerprinted him. This violated his fourth and fourteen Amendment rights. The courts made impermissible Use of the testimony even if law enforcement had reasonable suspicion.

What rights are limited in schools and what is the school legally allowed to do? This has been a topic that occurred many times throughout history. Strip searches are unconstitutional in some cases due to the Fourth Amendment. Schools are not allowed to strip search any student in any circumstances, they have to leave it to a higher authority. In this case, the school officials performed a strip search on a female, thinking it was the right thing to do, meanwhile, it was illegal.

What rights are limited in schools and what is the school legally allowed to do? This has been a topic that occurred many times throughout history. Strip searches are unconstitutional in some cases due to the Fourth Amendment. Schools are not allowed to strip search any student in any circumstances, they have to leave it to a higher authority. In this case, the school officials performed a strip search on a female, thinking it was the right thing to do, meanwhile, it was illegal.