Danny Kyllo v. United States

GPTKB entity

Predicate	Object
gptkbp:instanceOf	gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court_case
gptkbp:arguedDate	February 20, 2001
gptkbp:citation	533 U.S. 27
gptkbp:date	June 11, 2001
gptkbp:decision	5-4
gptkbp:dissentingOpinionBy	gptkb:Justice_John_Paul_Stevens
gptkbp:fullName	gptkb:Kyllo_v._United_States
gptkbp:heldBy	Use of thermal imaging technology to detect heat patterns inside a home constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label	Danny Kyllo v. United States
gptkbp:judge	gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkbp:legalSubject	gptkb:Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution search and seizure
gptkbp:location	gptkb:Oregon
gptkbp:majorityOpinionBy	gptkb:Justice_Breyer gptkb:Justice_Ginsburg gptkb:Justice_Thomas gptkb:Justice_Souter gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
gptkbp:petitioner	gptkb:Danny_Kyllo
gptkbp:plotSummary	The Supreme Court held that using a thermal imaging device from outside a home to detect heat patterns constitutes a search and requires a warrant.
gptkbp:predecessor	use of technology in Fourth Amendment analysis
gptkbp:response	gptkb:United_States
gptkbp:bfsParent	gptkb:Kyllo_v._United_States
gptkbp:bfsLayer	6