Kyllo vs. United States

Background
A man was suspect by the police, of growing weed. In addition to staking out hjis house, they used thermal imaging to see if there was an abnormal amount of heat radiating from one area of his house. There was and the police used that information to obtain a warrant. Then they proceeded to enter the home and arrest the man.

Issue
Is thermal and infrared imaging a violation of an individual's right to privacy as protected by the 4th amendment?

Decision
Using thermal or infrared imaging does violate one's 4th amendment right.

Majority - Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent - Rehnquist, Stevens, O-Connor, Kennedy

My Opinion
I believe that using the thermal imaging did violate his 4th amendment right to privacy. Based on Katz vs. United States, information not obtainable through a routine search cannot be obtained without a warrant. In Katz's case his phone calls were wire tapped so the police could listen in on his conversation. The police could not have obtained that evidence with technology and therefore made the search unreasonable. Again we see technology being used to find special information in Kyllo's case, yet that search of his house was unreasonable; "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant," said Scalia while speaking for the majority. Therefore, the search was in fact unreasonable.

District of Columbia v. Heller

Background
A group of citizens in Washington D.C. banded together to fight a law passed that made it mandatory for all guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled. They felt that the gun, being disassembled, would not serve its' purpose of protection.

Issues
Is it constitutional to pass a law mandating all guns in the home must be unloaded and disassembled?

Decision
In a 5-4 decision the high court ruled that the law was unconstitutional and the state cannot ban handguns altogether and that forcing the guns to be disassembled makes the gun useless in an emergency.
Majority- Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent- Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg Breyer

Opinion
I agree with the majority opinion in this case. According to U.S. v. Miller, the defendants were not allowed to posses the sawed-off shotgun because at that time, a sawed-off shotgun did not contribute to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." However, a handgun does contribute to a well regulated militia due to it being the very basic firearm. So according to U.s. V. Heller, they should be able to possess handguns.