Duffens V Valenti Moot Court Majority Opinion
Olympus V. DeNolf, Jr. – Majority Opinion
THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
----------------------
No. 2009-3280
----------------------
State of Olympus
v.
William DeNolf, Jr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the Court of the State of Olympus
------------------------------------------------------------------
Argued and Submitted February 19, 2013.
The Petitioner incorrectly applied Katz v United States, 389 U.S.347 (1967). The use of a law enforcement restricted wiretap device without a warrant is not an equivalent application of the law compared to the use of a publically available optical device. The wiretap required a physical intrusion into a private, controlled communications channel. A warrant was not necessary before the government used the Cyclops-237 because the device was not specifically restricted to law enforcement use and was available for purchase by the general public. Materials or devices specifically restricted for military or law enforcement use requires a letter of certification on government letterhead with a verifiable point of contact specifically naming the purchasing official. These items are further controlled within each agency.
The use of the Cyclops-237 was not a violation of the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable Search and Seizure and did not substantively the drug search warrant. The device did not have special thermal capabilities, “therefore revealing intimate details not otherwise obtainable.” Kyllo v. United States 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
The petitioner cited United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) correctly, citing a beeper as not a search, but placing a beeper device to obtain information that would not otherwise be obtainable without it was a violation of rights.
Detective Paige’ legal ground surveillance of the residence, is affirmed with reasonable probable cause that she witnessed the
THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
----------------------
No. 2009-3280
----------------------
State of Olympus
v.
William DeNolf, Jr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the Court of the State of Olympus
------------------------------------------------------------------
Argued and Submitted February 19, 2013.
The Petitioner incorrectly applied Katz v United States, 389 U.S.347 (1967). The use of a law enforcement restricted wiretap device without a warrant is not an equivalent application of the law compared to the use of a publically available optical device. The wiretap required a physical intrusion into a private, controlled communications channel. A warrant was not necessary before the government used the Cyclops-237 because the device was not specifically restricted to law enforcement use and was available for purchase by the general public. Materials or devices specifically restricted for military or law enforcement use requires a letter of certification on government letterhead with a verifiable point of contact specifically naming the purchasing official. These items are further controlled within each agency.
The use of the Cyclops-237 was not a violation of the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable Search and Seizure and did not substantively the drug search warrant. The device did not have special thermal capabilities, “therefore revealing intimate details not otherwise obtainable.” Kyllo v. United States 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
The petitioner cited United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) correctly, citing a beeper as not a search, but placing a beeper device to obtain information that would not otherwise be obtainable without it was a violation of rights.
Detective Paige’ legal ground surveillance of the residence, is affirmed with reasonable probable cause that she witnessed the