Dlk Dbq Analysis
There is a line between valid and invalid searches. The U.S. government used means of searching in public territory to bust a vast marijuana growing facility. They used a thermal radiation detection device without consent, but in a fair way. The police did not invade private information within the private place. There were suspicions of illegal substance, and they used a new form of technology, which helps make or break the case. With these motives, the government did not go too far in the DLK case. The Fourth Amendment is used in a precedent case, Katz v. United States. It states, “[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places…” (Document A) With this considered, the police did not invade his personal belongings, only the view of a public space (Document C). Justice John Paul Stevens says, “Heat waves, like aromas that are generated in a kitchen…, enter the public domain if and when they leave a building…” (Document F) The government has complete jurisdiction in what they are doing, because Document E states, “The use of the thermal imager in this case is not a Fourth Amendment search”. Sam this is an excellent paragraph. You are able to combine various documents into one
…show more content…
They did not invade the home, but merely take a picture of it. Technology is created for a purpose, in this case to help catch unsuspecting targets. A warrant was not needed, because it was a public search. The government did not go too far in this case, because they were using a new form of technology, which helps catch criminals like DLK. From the precedent case, Katz v. United States, the government used a new form of technology on a public area. The government does not want someone to know they are being watched, as they want to figure out exactly what the person is doing. The government used technology to catch Katz, while doing illegal things, as they did with DLK. (Document
They did not invade the home, but merely take a picture of it. Technology is created for a purpose, in this case to help catch unsuspecting targets. A warrant was not needed, because it was a public search. The government did not go too far in this case, because they were using a new form of technology, which helps catch criminals like DLK. From the precedent case, Katz v. United States, the government used a new form of technology on a public area. The government does not want someone to know they are being watched, as they want to figure out exactly what the person is doing. The government used technology to catch Katz, while doing illegal things, as they did with DLK. (Document