Pubdate: Tue, 12 Jun 2001
Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Copyright: 2001 The Christian Science Publishing Society
Contact:  http://www.csmonitor.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/83
Author: Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

COURT LIMITS POLICE'S HIGH-TECH SEARCH OF HOMES

Justices Protect Privacy In A 5-To-4 Ruling Against The Use Of Thermal Imaging.

The US Supreme Court has drawn the curtains, closed the blinds, and 
firmly shut the door on the unsupervised use of law-enforcement 
technology to detect crimes in private homes.

The result: American homes are today more private than they were yesterday.

In a major decision that strengthens privacy protections in the face 
of increasingly sophisticated law-enforcement snooping devices, the 
high court ruled yesterday that police must obtain a warrant from a 
neutral judge prior to using technology that reveals even relatively 
minor details about what's going on inside a private home.

"The use of technology in this way clearly exposes private 
information concealed in the home," says James Tomkovicz, a professor 
at the University of Iowa College of Law. The ruling, he adds, may 
set a standard on when technology triggers constitutional protections.

"The Fourth Amendment values privacy in the home above all else, and 
technology makes it possible ... without physically intruding [the 
way] the British did [when] the Constitution was framed," says Mr. 
Tomkovicz, who filed an amicus brief for the American Civil Liberties 
Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Police are not required to get a judge's authorization before using 
technological surveillance devices that merely record information 
about a home that is exposed to public view. But in its 5-to-4 
ruling, the court says the use of the technology requires a warrant 
when a device could uncover information about activities inside a 
home that police could not have obtained otherwise.

The ruling sets a benchmark for police who are in a position to use 
intrusive high-tech surveillance tools. "The Fourth Amendment draws a 
firm line at the entrance to the house," writes Justice Antonin 
Scalia for the majority. "That line, we think, must be not only firm, 
but also bright."

Civil libertarians were warning that high-tech snooping by law 
enforcement was threatening to undermine the Fourth Amendment's 
prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. They had urged the 
court to head off a potential explosion of privacy-rights litigation 
by setting a clear standard to cover the types of information 
gathered by newly emerging technologies.

Law-enforcement officials countered that such devices should require 
a warrant only if they reveal intimate details inside a home.

The high court's ruling relates to the marijuana conviction of Danny 
Kyllo of Florence, Ore., whose home was raided by drug agents after a 
thermal-imaging device showed a higher amount of heat emanating from 
his house than from neighboring structures.

The device detects infrared radiation and shows it as visible light. 
Drug agents suspected the heat was being produced by banks of 
high-intensity light bulbs in a marijuana-growing operation inside 
Mr. Kyllo's home.

Armed in part with the thermal-imaging observations, agents obtained 
a search warrant and raided the Kyllo home. Inside, they found more 
than 100 marijuana plants, weapons, and marijuana-growing equipment.

Kyllo's lawyer challenged the legality of the search, saying agents 
should have obtained a search warrant from a judge prior to using the 
thermal-imaging device.

Lawyers for the drug agents countered that the device recorded the 
thermal image of the home from a car parked in a street. They said 
the procedure was no more intrusive to Kyllo's privacy than had 
agents taken a photo or videotaped the home from the street.

In reversing a lower court ruling, the court majority said the 
thermal image of the heat gave investigators key additional 
information about Kyllo's activities inside the house.

But the majority stopped short of reversing Kyllo's conviction. 
Instead, the court remanded the case back to a federal judge in 
Oregon to determine if investigators had enough other evidence when 
they applied for their search warrant to justify the raid.

Alexandra Marks contributed to this report from New York.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe