Hypothetical Case Involving the 4th Amendment Criminal

Hypothetical Case Involving the 4th Amendment

Criminal Justice

I am not sure how I would rule in this case. I would need to know more about the case such as if there was other evidence besides what was obtained with the heat sensor. I am not also familiar with the rules regarding police officers and the technology they can use on public property. Don't police officers position themselves on public property and aim speed guns at traffic in order to make arrests on public streets or highways? If it is permissible for that kind of evidence to lead to a ticket or arrest, why should the heat sensor evidence be thrown out? This is why I would need to know more about the case. Have the police been monitoring this person's activities before the heat sensor was used? Did the person participate in activities that gave the police a valid reason to be monitoring him and the house in the first place before the use of the heat sensor? The answers to these questions would influence my decision. There is a great deal of context that needs to be clarified in order to rule fairly in this case.

Without that information, my gut reaction is that the defendant has a right to an appeal, even though it is not overly probably that he will win. I think it is really important to know if the police already had reason to be watching this person. If the cops out of the blue just were using that technology recklessly until they got a reasonable hit that ended up resulting in an arrest, than though the man is growing marijuana in a state where it is illegal, I would rule in favor of the defendant. If the police were building a case or investigation against this person and had documentation that proved or sincerely implied illegal activities, then it would be permissible that over the course of that investigation, they used the heat sensor device to detect the heat signature that was likely heat lamps for an illegal activity. In that or a similar case, the use of the heat sensor and any evidence linked to the use of the heat sensor is totally admissible. This is a tricky case and more details and information is necessary to provide a just and accurate ruling.

In of itself, it is not illegal for the officer to have stood on a public street and used a piece of police technology. Depending on the context in which the action took place is what is the critical factor to accurately determine. Yes, the device was used without the permission of the defendant, but the police do not need permission from a person, let alone a suspect, to use a piece of law enforcement technology on a public street no matter what the time of day is. There are even some basic and/or limited forms of surveillance that law enforcement does not need warrants or public permission in order to use. Depending on further elaboration of the specific contexts of these actions and events, this may be yet another case when the police were within the limits of the law and their rights to use whatever equipment is at their disposal to do their jobs.