Thermal Imager Dbq Case Study

We all need our own privacy at times. What is privacy you might ask. Privacy is and I quote “the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.” In this case, the government believes that they aren’t violating privacy when it comes to using a thermal imager to scan DLK’s house. If the government doesn’t think it’s a violation, what would people do if they did want privacy? In this paper, I will argue that using a thermal imager is breaking DLK’s Fourth Amendment rights because there had been a precedent cases where the government had gone too far, using new technology invades privacy, and heat was detected as if it was a real search.
In Document A, it contained precedent cases related towards DLK’s case. The first precedent case was Carroll v. United States (1925). Carroll had been suspected to have sold liquor and was caught driving on the highway. The federal agents pulled him over and saw that there was liquor in his car, so they arrested him. He had argued that they had needed a warrant in order to search his vehicle, but the Supreme Court said that it was valid. The reason why it was valid was because of the statement Chief Justice William Howard Taft said, which was, “.. the guaranty of
When a thermal imager is used it’s dangerous to privacy that rests largely on the idea of technology giving out personal information based on the inside of a home. For example, if the police were to get a warrant and go inside the house, they can’t see the air, but can feel where the warmest places are, such as the image. The image can see where the greatest amount of heat is coming from, just as if they are experiencing where the heat is in real life, therefore it is a