Police used a thermal imager to scan Kyllo’s home because they had information that he
was growing marijuana in his home. Officers did not have a warrant and claimed the
search was in plain view. The Supreme Court ruled that:
a. use of a thermal imager did not alter the fact that the officers observed the marijuana
in plain view.
b. use of a thermal imager to explore details of a home that in the past would have been
unknown without a physical intrusion into the home is a search and subject to Fourth
Amendment requirements.
c. thermal imagers are common devices and, therefore, the search was in plain view.
d. the use of a thermal imager is always illegal.
According to the Supreme Court, a police officer is permitted to use drug sniffing dogs
during a routine stop for a traffic violation:
a. because the driver of the car does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while
lawfully stopped.
b. only if the officer can establish probable cause that the driver has contraband in the
car.
c. only if the officer has probable cause and a search warrant.
d. only if the driver has consented to the search.