Electronic Surveillance Case Review

Olmstead v U.S., 277 U.S. 438, (1928) – Privacy Doctrine

Facts: Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger and federal agents installed wiretaps in his premises without a judicial approval. He was convicted based on evidence from the wiretaps.

Issues: The issue was whether the acceptance the wiretaps as evidence violated the fourth and fifth amendments.

Ruling: The court ruled that the wiretaps were immoral/unethical but did not violate the fourth and fifth amendments. It did not violate the fourth amendment as wiretaps are intangible. It did not affect the fifth amendment as the conversations were voluntary (Olmstead v. United States).Electronic Surveillance Case Review

Term: Privacy doctrine is based on the reasonable expectation of privacy while at home. Persons expect their right to privacy to be protected while in their homes.

Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) – Electronic Surveillance

Facts: Federal agents tapped conversations that Katz had with others on a public phone booth and used the information to convict him for transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states.

Issues: The issue was whether the federal agents could use the collected information and if this violated his right to privacy as protected by the fourth amendment.

Ruling: The court ruled that the tapped conversations violated the protection that Katz enjoyed from the fourth amendment. It clarified that although there was no physical intrusion, the electronic surveillance violated the reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz v. United States).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM -FREE PAPER NOW

Term: Electronic surveillance refers to the use of electronic devices to record conversations without the physical presence of federal agents.

U.S. v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971) – Plain View Doctrine

Facts: A government informant engaged in conversation with What at different locations. The informant was wearing a concealed radio transmitter at the time of the conversations and federal agents were able to listen in to the conversations. The informant was unavailable to testify at the trial and the federal agents testified to what they heard through the transmitter.Electronic Surveillance Case Review

Issues: The issue was whether the fourth amendment barred federal agents from testifying on the information acquired through the concealed transmitter.

Ruling: The court ruled that the federal agents could testify to conversation they overheard and that this was admissible in court even if the informant was unavailable to testify (United States v. White).

Term: The plain view doctrine allows federal agents to focus on conversation overheard in the course of conducting an investigation and if there is probable course to believe that the conversation has connections with criminal activities.

Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 745 (2001) – Plain View Doctrine

Facts: Using thermal imaging cameras, a federal agent obtained images showing that Kyllo was likely to have been growing marijuana in his home. The images were used to obtain a search warrant that ascertained the presence of marijuana plants there were used in a case against Kyllo.

Issues: The issue of concern is whether the use of a thermal imaging camera violates the fourth amendment.

Ruling: The court ruled that the use of a thermal imaging camera violated the fourth amendment as it constitute a presumptive unreasonable search without an active warrant (Kyllo v. United States).Electronic Surveillance Case Review

Term: The plain view doctrine allows for search and seizure of items in plain view. The home’s interior was not in plain view and using a thermal camera implied searching the interior of the home, and this was not in plain view.

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) – Open Fields Doctrine

Facts: A drug detection dog alerted policy to the presence of marijuana in a car stopped during a routine traffic check. Caballes argued that the fourth amendment protected him from unreasonable search and seizure, and the search by the traffic police violated this right.

Issues: The issue was whether the canine sniff during the routine traffic stop violated the fourth amendment.

Ruling: The court argued that the fourth amendment was not violated as reasonable suspicion is not required to conduct a canine sniff during a legal traffic stop. Legitimate privacy was not at risk, and the dog only alerted policy to the presence of an illegal drug (Illinois v. Caballes).

Term: The open fields doctrine and abandoned property upholds the right for people to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure in their property. However, illegal activity that can be ascertained from outside the property is permissible and not considered illegal.

California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) – Abandoned Property Doctrine

Facts: Two plain cloths police officers conducting a patrol in an unmarked car arrested the suspect while he was attempting to flee and retrieved crack cocaine that he attempted to dispose.

Issues: Two issues presented. The first issue is whether arresting a fleeing person is a seizure and in violation of the fourth amendment. The second issue was whether a fleeing suspect can avoid prosecution by discarding incriminating evidence before being arrested.

Ruling: The court ruled that the search and seizure was unreasonable as Hodari was yet to submit to authority when he discarded the crack cocaine. The dissenting argument was that the Hodari was under authority when the police identified themselves and told him to stop therefore the discarded crack cocaine should have been admissible as evidence (California v. Hodari D). Electronic Surveillance Case Review

Term: The abandoned property doctrine depends on the owner’s intent to relinquish control over the property. Voluntarily relinquishing interest in the property implies that there is no further expectation of privacy in the property.

Works Cited

“California v. Hodari D.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1990/89-1632. Accessed 31 Aug. 2020.

“Illinois v. Caballes.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-923. Accessed 31 Aug. 2020.

“Katz v. United States.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35. Accessed 31 Aug. 2020.

“Kyllo v. United States.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-8508. Accessed 31 Aug. 2020.

“Olmstead v. United States.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/277us438. Accessed 31 Aug. 2020.

“United States v. White.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1970/13. Accessed 31 Aug. 2020.

Electronic Surveillance Case Review