Read each paragraph and give me your opinion do you agree do you disagree with those 4 paragraphs one for each part and if you agree or disagree why or why not cj
1. Articulate whether, based on the case you have selected, posting a no trespassing sign creates a reasonable expectation of privacy. include your rationale for your decision. The case that I have chosen to elaborate on is United States v. Jones. When posting a no trespassing sign in this case, it would’ve not created a reasonable expectation of privacy because the court held that “[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.” Ibid (quoting United States v. Knotts, 460 U.D. 276, 281 (1983)) The government placing a GPS in Mrs. Jones vehicle was a valid 4th amendment search. Explain how your case selection relates to whether open fields are protected from searches and seizure. Open fields in my selected case was the fact that the GPS monitored movements of Mr. Jones outside of his property. The court ruled that because of this, Mr. Jones 4th amendment right was not violated because he was in public places even when the GPS was placed in the vehicle. Differentiate between the constitutional requirements for protected searches and unprotected searches as they relate to the duties of a criminal justice professional. Under the constitution and 4th amendment, the amendment protects “People not places”. Also under the amendment, Open fields is when an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home. Officers may perform their duties as long as they do not violate a persons 4th amendment rights, but if they see criminal activity or choose to monitor areas within the public, a person does not have reasonable expectation of privacy so any evidence obtained will not be suppressed in court.
2. The case I used was United States v. Dunn. In this case the defendant’s home was monitored by the police with electronic devices that detected drug making material. The police entered on to the property and saw a barn in the back. The police went to the barn where they smelled some chemicals. The police shined their light into the barn but they didn’t enter the barn. The police kept monitoring the premises and got a search warrant where drug making materials were found and the defendant was arrested. To note there was fencing around the house and there were separate fences around the barn that was about sixty feet from the home. I feel that with this case posting a no trespassing sign will give the defendant a reasonable expectation of privacy from his neighbors and other citizens but with the illegal drug making I don’t think it gives him privacy will it comes to the law enforcement. In this case here the open fields were not protected from search and seizure because illegal drug making was being monitored. As a criminal justice professional you do have to make sure you don’t violate a person’s 4th amendment right by searching and seizing property without being in legal ramifications but when you have reason to believe because of your experience that illegal practices are being practiced then having an unprotected search is legal.
3. Explain whether or not, as a criminal justice practitioner, you agree with the Court in Kyllo, and why. Include your rationale.
Analyze whether heat radiating from a private home should be protected using an additional related case as support for your position.
Differentiate the plain view, plain odor, and plain touch doctrines from the thermal imaging device in Kyllo with respect to search requirements.
Explore whether you believe the results of the Kyllo case has had a positive or negative impact for law enforcement.
I believe that the ruling of the court that is correct that imaging device use in a search of a house is unreasonable without a warrant. This because the device detects heat waves. Heat waves can come from a regular lamp or heater in a house. That can be mistaken for high heat lamps that is used to heat weed plants. A thermal image can see only heat in a room and not specified area where the heat is coming from unlike physically going into a house to see the area where the heat waves are coming from such as a heating lamp in a closet where the weed plants are stored. In the case of California v. Ciraolo when the police was tip about weed plants being grown in the backyard which was covered by a fence and shield by a wall. Police got a plane to fly over to physically see the plants. Without the plane that was able to fly over the area and see the plants with their eyes. The plain view is the ability to see the evidence even though the evidence is hidden. The plain odor is the physical smell of something such as weed plants to determine that it is what the sent that the police is smelling. For example when a police pull someone over because of a traffic violation a smell what they believe is weed. Once the smell is determine that it is weed then plain touch which is to physically touching the evidence to make sure it is what it is. I believe that the police can be seen as a force that will overstep the rights of individuals to get evidence and make an arrest because they are using techniques such as these.
4. Explain whether or not, as a criminal justice practitioner, you agree with the Court in Kyllo, and why. Include your rationale. I agree with the opinion of Kyllo v. United States, in that I will typically defer to the privacy guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The thermal imaging device used in this case was not available to the public, and therefore, should not be allowed to be used as a tool to gather information or evidence that could incriminate a subject. However, on the contrary, law enforcement could just as well find an electric bill in someone’s refuse (garbage at the end of their driveway to be taken away) and use that as evidence, which I do not find issue with. The difference is in the way that evidence is being gathered. Analyze whether heat radiating from a private home should be protected using an additional related case as support for your position. The fourth amendment protects people, not “things”. Heat and fields and anything that can be observed with the senses can be considered evidence without necessitating a warrant. In the case of California v. Ciraolo, law enforcement conducted a warrantless flyover and took photos of a subject’s backyard and discovered marijuana plants growing. The photos were used to establish a search warrant, and the subject pled guilty to the charges. The Supreme Court concluded that warrants are not necessary to observe what would already be visible to the naked eye in a public domain. Differentiate the plain view, plain odor, and plain touch doctrines from the thermal imaging device in Kyllo with respect to search requirements. The difference is that thermal imaging uses technology to incriminate a subject, whereas the others use one’s senses. In using plain view, plain odor and plain touch doctrines, law enforcement relies on their own competency versus the subject’s irresponsibility when committing a crime. Thermal imaging is a tool that gives law enforcement an edge over a subject that could be considered unethical. Explore whether you believe the results of the Kyllo case has had a positive or negative impact for law enforcement. The conclusion of this case encourages law enforcement to procure more evidence that would establish probable cause and substantiate a search warrant. It also ensures that law enforcement is continuing to operate within ethical boundaries that do not infringe on the privacy of citizens.