Overview of the Fourth Amendment and the Case of Kyllo v. U.S.
The Fourth Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights that serves as a protective mechanism against the unlawful actions of authorities. Such was the case in Kyllo v. United States (99-8508), 533 U.S. 27 (2001), where numerous pieces of evidence were deemed unconstitutionally obtained due to the use of thermal imaging devices by police officers (U.S. Supreme Court [SC], 2001). Specifically, the question was focused on whether such a device could be considered under the plain view doctrine.
Understanding the Plain View Doctrine and Its Conditions
In short, the Fourth Amendment renders one’s house a haven from unreasonable intruders. However, it does not apply to objects visible from publicly accessible areas (SC, 2001). In other words, these objects can be referred to as objects in “plain view.” Three conditions must be met for the plain view doctrine to apply. Namely, the object must be plainly seen; the officer must be legally present in the area where it is viewed; and it must be instantly clear that the item can serve as evidence. Plain odor and plain touch doctrines work in the same fashion.
Thermal Imaging as a Source of Legal Ambiguity
The thermal imaging device served as a source of ambiguity in the case. On the one hand, it does not physically intrude into one’s personal space (SC, 2001). Moreover, it only collects information from outside the protected territory (SC, 2001). Finally, as was approved by SC (2001), there was nothing that rendered the doctrines of plain view, odor, and touch inapplicable in the given case.
On the other hand, the assumption that a thermal imaging device works under the plain view doctrine disregards a vital peculiarity of using such a device in the first place. That is, thermal radiation cannot be obtained without a special device. In other words, it cannot be considered to be in “plain view” based on the first condition of the doctrine. Thus, using a thermal imaging device requires justification in the same way any search would, which was precisely the final Court ruling in the case.
Reference
The U.S. Supreme Court. (2001). Kyllo v. United States (99-8508) 533 U.S. 27 (2001). Cornell Law School. Web.