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