From: [K D GL 64 A] at [prodigy.com] (Paul Wolf)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Court Rules IR Scanner Violates 4th
Date: 29 Apr 1998 13:18:50 GMT

[1] Court Rules Infrared Scanner Violates 4th Amendment
[s--t--r] at [us.net]


Please note the "Prosecution" who argued in favor of thermal scanning with
no court order was the Reno Dept. of Justice, backed by Louie Freeh from
the FBI.  I find it interesting that the Clinton administration would
squeel to the heavens when Linda Tripp decides to tape her own phone calls
with Monica Lewinsky... but support unauthorized thermal scanning of any
home in the US.

=======================================================================
Court Rules Infrared Scanner Violates Fourth Amendment
=======================================================================

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled on April 9 that
the use of thermal imaging devices to examine homes in criminal
investigations is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The court
ruled in U.S. v. Kyllo that police must obtain a court order based on
probable cause before a thermal imager can be used.

The court found that the information gleaned from the infrared scanner
is "sufficiently intimate to give rise to a Fourth Amendment
violation."  The court noted that

     with a basic understanding of the layout of a home, a thermal
     imager could identify a variety of daily activities conducted in
     homes across America: use of showers and bathtubs, ovens,
     washers and dryers, and any other household appliance that emits
     heat.  Even the routine and trivial activities conducted in our
     homes are sufficiently "intimate" as to give rise to Fourth
     Amendment violation if observed by law enforcement without a
     warrant.  We therefore conclude that the use of a thermal imager
     to observe heat emitted from various objects within the home
     infringes upon an expectation of privacy that society clearly
     deems reasonable.

The court rejected prosecution arguments that the scanner was merely
recording "waste heat" and cited the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
in finding that the interpretation of the heat information yields
information on the activities inside the house:

     [o]ur fellow circuits have, we think, misapprehended
     the most pernicious of the device's capabilities.  The
     machine intrudes upon the privacy of the home not
     because it records white spots on a dark background
     but rather because the interpretation of that data
     allows the government to monitor those domestic
     activities that generate a significant amount of heat.
     Thus, while the imager cannot reproduce images or
     sounds, it nonetheless strips the sanctuary of the
     home of one vital dimension of its security: "the
     right to be let alone" from the arbitrary and discre-
     tionary monitoring of our actions by government
     officials.

The text of the opinion is available at:

     http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9630333.html

1 if by land, 2 if by sea.  Paul Revere - encryption 1775