Kyllo v. United States
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Kyllo_v._United_States an entity of type: Thing
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant. In its majority opinion, the court held that thermal imaging constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, as the police were using devices to "explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." The ruling has been noted for refining the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine in light of new surveillance technologies, and when those are used in areas that are accessible to the public.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Kyllo v. United States
rdf:langString
Danny Lee Kyllo v. United States
xsd:integer
2800168
xsd:integer
1123080222
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy
rdf:langString
Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
27
xsd:integer
533
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-20
xsd:integer
2001
rdf:langString
Kyllo v. United States,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-11
xsd:integer
2001
rdf:langString
Danny Lee Kyllo v. United States
rdf:langString
Thermal imaging of a home constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment and may only be done with a search warrant.
rdf:langString
Kyllo v. United States
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices to monitor heat radiation in or around a person's home, even if conducted from a public vantage point, is unconstitutional without a search warrant. In its majority opinion, the court held that thermal imaging constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, as the police were using devices to "explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." The ruling has been noted for refining the reasonable expectation of privacy doctrine in light of new surveillance technologies, and when those are used in areas that are accessible to the public.
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
23307
