The Fourth Amendment Yields To Technology
             Oregon resident David Kyllo and his wife were suspected of growing and distributing marijuana. US agent William Elliot became skeptical of Kyllo while investigating his original target. Kyllo's unusually high electrical bill stirred the law enforcer's suspicion. On January 16, 1992 sergeant Daniel Haas (National Guard) discovered an immense amount of heat emitted from Kyllo's high intensity growing lamps. Through the use of an Agema 210 thermal imager Haas was able to collect molecular information without a warrant. (New York Times 2/21/01) The fourth amendment of the constitution gives an American the right to be secure within their home. This right can only be over ridden with a warrant, which is issued upon a probable cause. However, the police used the information from the thermal detector as a basis of obtaining a search warrant. The essential question is if our fourth amendment right should yield to technology.
             After the police discovered over 100 illegal plants, the defendant had no other choice but to plead guilty. Conversely, Kyllo appealed the case to the Supreme Court. He challenged the warrant-less use of thermal imaging, because he thought that it violated his fourth amendment right. The police did not have enough probable cause to receive a search warrant; therefore they used invasive technology to pry into Kyllo's security. His lawyer Kenneth Lerner said, "allowing police to monitor thermal radiation from homes, strips us of our most basic boundary of personal privacy." (USA Today 2/21/00) Lerner suggested that the police should have to obtain a warrant prior to the use of "spying" techniques beyond the human senses. (USA Today 2/21/00) The lawyer agreed that a person forfeits their right to privacy if they stand in front of their window. But he thought it was despicable that Americans had to waive their right of privacy by failing to regulate heat. (USA Today 2/21/0...