Kyllo v. United States

Hello, I'm Angel.

And today we're talking about kylo be United States how

the Supreme Court case to be, or how the Supreme

Court case came to be and also the, uh, logic

behind each side.

So first, a little bit of history about how the

case came to be is that Kyler was suspected of

growing marijuana inside his house and because of the federal

agents to do is that if they used thermal imaging

and it matched or that since marijuana requires high levels

of heat in order to be grown inside, if they

used thermal imaging and it matched the the heat levels

did required to know to grow marijuana, then it was

probably it was probable that the weed was going.

I mean, that marijuana was going inside hellos house.

And when they I found, or when they used thermal

imaging, they found heat levels, uh, similar to those that

you need to grow marijuana inside.

And so this was used as they're probably reason, in

order to request a search warrant and be authorized by

a judge were and after this, they search Skylar's house

and arrested him.

And now the constitutional question that or the arises from

this case is that kylo argues that, uh, thermal imaging

account the search which violates the Fourth Amendment rights and

the U S K or the U.

S. U.

S government.

Uh, are you that thermal imaging actually does not count

searching your house so they do not need a warrant

to search it.

And this eventually worked its way up to the Supreme

Court, where the definite side to side with kylo.

And in here, the Supreme Court, I mean, the Fourth

Amendment stage that the right other people to be secure

in their house in the persons, houses, papers and effects

against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and

no one shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by

oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to research

and the prison or things to be ceased.

And along with the force, men were being cited uh,

b U S.

It was also cited, cited in where cats was in

a similar situation for federal agents.

Believe that cuts was you transfer transmitting gambling information and

they found that he used he used a public phone

booth to do that.

So federal agents put a listening device outside of the

public phone booth that cat uses and notice to listen

to him.

And after this, uh, they arrested cards for sharing gambling

information and cut food.

The United States government and said that his Fourth Amendment

rights were actually being violated.

And what this case came to be is that you

cannot send a person, does not expect for them to

be listened to in a public in a public phone

booth that you cannot then listen to them, or that

you cannot listen to them for for surveillance.

Recent because that counts as a search and you need

a search warrant for that which the federal government did

not. And now this was excited because it's a very

similar to Kyle situation in which a person does not

expect thermal imaging to be used on their house or

just anywhere in general unless being stated that they are.

And since since kylo could was not expecting or it

was probably probably that Kyler was not expecting thermal imaging

to be used in his house, this means, uh, cut

Richard. The U.

S. Also applies to him, and since the government did

not have a search warrant for demo imaging.

Didn't they broke the law for the Constitution?

I mean, and the Supreme Court decided or sided with

kylo and justice and this came to be a 5

to 4 decision in the Supreme Court.

And even though the United States government did lose, they

actually raised some very interesting points as well.

In the dissenting opinion, they first stated that they never

entered the house.

But then that that can also apply to or they

also cited, Ah, boy, the U.

S will be the United States government in which the

Supreme Court I should be stated that I that I

cannot, by the law of the US United States government

be guilty of trespass.

And this basically they basically argued that they were just

using their eyes or I mean enhancing their I high

eyesight and and since you the I cannot be guilty

of trespass, this means that they do not need a

search warrant because it's not trespassing anything.

And they also argued that if the U.

S Supreme Court did not start with them, this could

very a dangerous president where we're new technology that are

that arrived could not, mhm could not Or the new

technology that arrived cannot be used to to surveil or

to search other people.

I mean, not search to watch other people and to

be used in the probable cause.

And while these are very interesting point, I do side

with kylo and the first case being that, uh yeah,

the first case being in the civil men in the

United States and how ties into the Fourth Amendment and

is a ties back to Kylie's case, where he he

retired into his own home, in which case he the

government has no business entering his house unless they have

a search warrant which does not which they do not.

And it also ties back to the cat versus the

United States, which has a very similar position as well.

And furthermore, they also the public.

The public does not have access as well, so they

could not argue that this was something that that the

regular This is not something that could be argued as

a general procedure, either that anybody could have done and

lastly were being revealed because thermal imaging, in the end,

does reveal parts of your house and especially he spots

in your house and it actually is, in a way,

indirectly entering your house.

Or, I mean, not entering surveilling your house and searching

for your or in this case, searching for your house,

too. And there were also some very interesting points made

by the US government.

And the first thing that the Fourth Amendment stops or

the first being the Fourth Amendment stops is the entrance.

However it does not, and the Fourth Amendment at the

time it was traded, they actually stopped at the entrance

of the house because they had no technology to look

inside the house.

But as the time change and new technology became available,

the Fourth Amendment right, cannot, or the Fourth Amendment cannot

be viewed the same way I said was viewed when

it was first created.

And because of this that it needs to be updated

to include new technology as well as well to be

considered. Searching asked, Thermal imaging and thermal imaging should also

not be considered to be compared to the naked eye,

uh, stated in, um and also thermal imaging cannot be

compared to the eye, as they did in Boy, the

United States, Because even though you are technically using your

eyes and your technically only watching someone or in this

case their house, you cannot actually view heat energy or

hit heat being emitted by the naked eye.

And we have no idea when we had ah, person

would have no idea that they were that that was

being used.

And in Boy Beat United States, the only thing that

we're the only tool that they used that enhanced their

eyesight was just, uh, binoculars or not Binoculars, um, cameras,

that record.

And they still were using their eyes that just had

better, a better quality.

And they need a cameras to show proof.

So in this case, the most emerging could should not

be counted as the I because it is it is

actually enhancing your eyesight.

And it is not something that is capable, or it

is not something you're incapable of doing by yourself alone.

Um, this concludes my presentation on the U.

S. Supreme Court case of Kyle of the United States

and the logic

Kyllo v. United States

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated