Pubdate: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) Copyright: 2001 St. Paul Pioneer Press Contact: http://www.pioneerplanet.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/379 Author: Amy Mayron HEAT-SEEKING CAMERA INCITES DEBATE A 4-year-old once disappeared in corn more than twice her height on a large farm in Redwood County, Minn., prompting her frightened parents to call for help. But before dozens of cops and a few police dogs began searching on foot, police used a heat-seeking camera mounted on a State Patrol helicopter and found her within 15 minutes. Such technology has been the focus of controversy lately over how it can be used in narcotics investigations. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that the cameras cannot be used to detect activities inside a dwelling without a warrant. The decision and the indoor-marijuana-cultivation case that led to it cast the devices as invasive police surveillance, infringing on people's right to privacy. In the 5-4 opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote of a future where cameras could see through walls, giving police officers X-ray vision into our lives. But in Minnesota, that is low on law enforcement's priority list. Instead, the cameras are used to search for missing children, people missing from boats, fugitives and even tornado survivors caught in rubble. Looking for marijuana greenhouses accounts for only about 1 percent of the camera's use in Minnesota, say those who use the equipment. "Indoor growers are usually few and far between," said Skip Van Patten, assistant special agent in charge for the Minnesota office of the Drug Enforcement Administration. "For us, it's methamphetamine and an increase in the clandestine labs." The DEA here does not have such a camera. The State Patrol, a division of the Department of Public Safety, owns the bulk of the technology locally. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension also owns a few hand-held units. The State Patrol has three helicopter-mounted units and one hand-held camera, plus all of the accessories, such as extra viewing monitors. In all, the equipment is worth about $500,000. The thermal cameras work by detecting energy. The images are broadcast onto monitors that show images much like what someone wearing night-vision goggles might see. Images that are white are hot; anything dark is cold. On a winter day, the State Patrol was chasing a suspect in a car. He drove into a residential development and jumped out of the car. The snowy ground looked gray on the monitor, but as the man - who was warm from the chase and appeared bright white - ran through the snow, he left behind shiny white footprints from the heat his feet gave off. The cameras, however, cannot see through walls or even windows. "There is a misconception about how sensitive it is and what it can or can't detect," said State Patrol Capt. Mark Dunaski, who has used the cameras for 10 years. "Anything that blocks electromagnetic energy will also block the thermal imager. In some cases it's far less intrusive than the naked eye." Chuck Samuelson of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union disagrees. He said people's right to privacy should always supersede technological advances. Before the State Patrol agrees to use the camera for a marijuana case, an investigator must have detailed evidence of a growing operation. Hennepin County Chief Judge Kevin Burke said he doesn't believe obtaining search warrants will be much of an issue. In his five years of presiding over drug cases, he has never seen a case that involved a thermal imager. When the rare case presents itself, he said, law enforcement should already have enough evidence to get search warrants for either thermal imaging or a raid. "If it's a scarce resource, you'll only deploy it when you really need it," he said. "It's probably a lot more interesting of a decision for law and criminology professors to sit around and analyze than it is for law enforcement, judges and the public in the real world." - --- MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe