Peeping Techno-Toms and the Fourth Amendment: Seeing through Kyllo's Rules Governing Technological Surveillance

This article suggests that the Supreme Court's decision in Kyllo v. United States may not be as protective of the home as it first appears. Kyllo held that use of a thermal imager to detect heat sources inside the home is a fourth amendment search, requiring a warrant and probable cause. But it...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Slobogin, Christopher (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2002
En:Año: 2002
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866322346
003 DE-627
005 20250125054922.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231019s2002 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866322346 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866322346 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Slobogin, Christopher  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Peeping Techno-Toms and the Fourth Amendment: Seeing through Kyllo's Rules Governing Technological Surveillance 
264 1 |c 2002 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This article suggests that the Supreme Court's decision in Kyllo v. United States may not be as protective of the home as it first appears. Kyllo held that use of a thermal imager to detect heat sources inside the home is a fourth amendment search, requiring a warrant and probable cause. But it also held that use of technology that is in general public use or that only discovers what a naked eye observer could see from a public vantage point is not a search, even when the location viewed is the interior of the home. This article shows that both the general public use and naked eye exceptions are inscrutable, conceptually incoherent, and normatively objectionable. In making the normative argument in favor of eliminating both exceptions, it looks at historical material, current Peeping Tom legislation and empirical findings. It then argues that technological surveillance of the home should be regulated either through a proportionality approach, which varies the level of cause the government must have to search with the search's intrusiveness, or through a legislative approach, using Title III's regulation of communications surveillance as the model 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/217205830.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4392968073 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866322346 
LOK |0 005 20231019043653 
LOK |0 008 231019||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE63220622 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw