|
gptkbp:instanceOf
|
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court_case
|
|
gptkbp:arguedDate
|
February 20, 2001
|
|
gptkbp:citation
|
121 S. Ct. 2038
150 L. Ed. 2d 94
533 U.S. 27
|
|
gptkbp:date
|
June 11, 2001
|
|
gptkbp:decidedBy
|
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
|
|
gptkbp:dissentingOpinionBy
|
gptkb:Anthony_Kennedy
gptkb:Sandra_Day_O'Connor
gptkb:William_Rehnquist
gptkb:John_Paul_Stevens
|
|
gptkbp:docketNumber
|
99-8508
|
|
gptkbp:fullName
|
gptkb:Danny_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
|
Kyllo v. United States
|
|
gptkbp:judge
|
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
|
|
gptkbp:legalSubject
|
gptkb:Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
|
|
gptkbp:location
|
gptkb:Oregon
|
|
gptkbp:majorityOpinionBy
|
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:David_Souter
gptkb:Antonin_Scalia
gptkb:Clarence_Thomas
gptkb:Stephen_Breyer
|
|
gptkbp:opinionBy
|
majority
dissent
|
|
gptkbp:petitioner
|
gptkb:Danny_Kyllo
|
|
gptkbp:predecessor
|
use of technology in law enforcement and privacy rights
|
|
gptkbp:relatedTo
|
gptkb:thermal_imaging
privacy
search and seizure
|
|
gptkbp:response
|
gptkb:United_States
|
|
gptkbp:bfsParent
|
gptkb:Antonin_Scalia
|
|
gptkbp:bfsLayer
|
5
|