Thermal imaging and the fourth amendment:Kyllo v. U.S.

Technological Innovation and the Application of the Fourth Amendment

“…Dow argued that such a move was in direct violation of Katz (1967) because the company had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the buildings and sheds within its 2,000-acre fenced facility. The company further argued that the "open fields" doctrine in Oliver v. United States (1984) did not apply; rather, they asserted that the sheds and buildings within its complex consti-tuted curtilage, no less so than those found around a private house, and thus should be protected against unreasonable searches as espoused in California v. Ciraolo (1986; see also Hardee, 2001;Hughes, 2001).…”

“…This limited disclosure also ensures that the owner of the property is not subjected to the embarrassment and inconvenience entailed in less discriminate and more intrusive investigative methods. (United States v. Place, 1983Place, , p. 2644 The Court ultimately upheld the use of police narcotics canines because, when properly trained, the dogs reveal nothing more than the presence of legally controlled substances (Hughes, 2001). Whereas the information collected by the Agema Thermovision was not in and of itself proof of wrongdoing, the identification of ultra-high-frequency electromagnetic energy (i.e., x-rays, gamma rays, and so forth) radiating from a private residence is almost certainly evidence of a crime.…”