Dlk Case Analysis
Thermal imaging is among the many tools that law enforcement uses to catch criminals growing marijuana illegally. For a man with the initials DLK, federal agents used thermal imaging to identify a heat pattern mirroring one of a marijuana growing room. After gathering this evidence, the agents obtained a search warrant and arrested DLK after finding a growing room in his home with 100 marijuana plants. However, DLK has raised the constitutional question on whether the thermal imaging scans needed a warrant and if they violated his fourth amendment rights. Based on evidence from Documents A, B, C, E and F, the government did not exceed their authority. The scan did not invade DLK’s privacy, the heat emitted was into a public space, and there was probable cause to prompt the use of the imager to collect information prior to a
…show more content…
Document A provides an overview of a precedent case, Carroll v. United States, where it was decided that in the situation that evidence could be destroyed or hidden, it is constitutional to conduct a search without a warrant. The overview described the case saying “federal agents believed Carroll was selling liquor...they saw him driving...and pulled him over…they searched his car finding liquor and arrested him.” Although this case is in fact different from DLK v. United States, it mirrors one idea, law enforcement took action without a warrant. In DLK v. United States, the federal agents suspected DLK was growing marijuana in his home. However, because there was not sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant “the imager [was a reasonable way] for law enforcement to gather information without … a search warrant” (Document E). Using thermal imaging in this case was a permitted means of collecting information and is summarized well with Justice John Paul Stevens’s statement in Document F, “[t]he officers’ conduct did not amount to a search and was perfectly
Document A provides an overview of a precedent case, Carroll v. United States, where it was decided that in the situation that evidence could be destroyed or hidden, it is constitutional to conduct a search without a warrant. The overview described the case saying “federal agents believed Carroll was selling liquor...they saw him driving...and pulled him over…they searched his car finding liquor and arrested him.” Although this case is in fact different from DLK v. United States, it mirrors one idea, law enforcement took action without a warrant. In DLK v. United States, the federal agents suspected DLK was growing marijuana in his home. However, because there was not sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant “the imager [was a reasonable way] for law enforcement to gather information without … a search warrant” (Document E). Using thermal imaging in this case was a permitted means of collecting information and is summarized well with Justice John Paul Stevens’s statement in Document F, “[t]he officers’ conduct did not amount to a search and was perfectly