In Kyllo v. United States the Supreme Court held that the Plain View Doctrine applies when officers use hi-tech equipment that is in general public use to conduct surveillance. In another case the court allowed the use of a technique that was in routine use. Both of these standards are rather vague and hard to apply. What would be a better standard that would help law enforcement determine whether they can legally use devices that enhance their five senses?Many people are unaware of their right to refuse when an officer asks for consent to conduct a search. For example, people frequently agree when an officer during a traffic stop say, “May I look in the trunk?” In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte the Supreme Court held that consent must be given voluntarily but refused to mandate that the individual be made aware of the right to withhold consent. Do you think this decision effectively balances the rights of the individual against those of the government? Discuss both sides of the issue.

The term “sense-enhancing technologies” refers to all types of equipment or machines that increase…

In Kyllo v. United States the Supreme Court held that the Plain View Doctrine applies when officers use hi-tech equipment that is in general public use to conduct surveillance. In another case the court allowed the use of a technique that was in routine use. Both of these standards are rather vague and hard to apply. What would be a better standard that would help law enforcement determine whether they can legally use devices that enhance their five senses?

In Kyllo v. United States the Supreme Court held that the Plain View Doctrine applies when officers use hi-tech equipment that is in general public use to conduct surveillance. In another case the court allowed the use of a technique that was in routine use. Both of these standards are rather vague and hard to apply. What would be a better standard that would help law enforcement determine whether they can legally use devices that enhance their five senses?