Technological Innovation and the Application of the Fourth Amendment

• Author: Matthew C. Woessner,Barbara Sims
• Published date: 01 May 2003
• Date: 01 May 2003
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986203251613
• Subject Matter: Article

10.1177/1043986203251613ARTICLEJournal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / May 2003Woessner, Sims / TECHNOLOGY & THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

Technological Innovation and

the Application of the Fourth Amendment

Considering the Implications of Kyllo v. United States

for Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism

MATTHEW C. WOESSNER

BARBARA SIMS

Penn State Harrisburg

InKyllo vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of sensory-enhancing technology

to see through traditional privacybarriers constituted an illegal search in violation of the Consti-

tution’sFourth Amendment protections. This article examines the history of Fourth Amendment

applications involving the use of technology by government officials.The authors discuss the

implications of Kylloin light of emerging technologies available to the government as a means of

gathering incriminating evidence against persons either engaging or conspiring to engage in

criminal behavior.Ultimately, they argue that the Kyllo standard for the application of sensory-

enhancing technology has important implications for the future of law enforcement and the

ongoing fight against international terrorism.

Keywords: searchand seizure; Kyllo v. United States; FourthAmendment; technology; terror-

ism; civil liberties

The Anglo-American common law tradition relies largely on a consistent

body of precedent as a basis for its institutional legitimacy. Yet, in the

application of justice, courts are often called on to apply ancient legal tradi-

tions to modern technological innovations. The process of applying prece-

dent to modern innovations is particularly daunting within the context of the

Fourth Amendment. Although the principles of limited government and pri-

vate property are widely accepted in the abstract, in reality,they are often dif-

ficult to implement.

224

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 19 No. 2, May 2003 224-238

DOI: 10.1177/1043986203251613

© 2003 Sage Publications