NCJ Number
195207
Journal
American Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 26 Issue: 1 Dated: Fall 2001 Pages: 43-60
Date Published
2001
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This article examines the issues raised by police use of thermal imaging.
Abstract
Thermal imaging allows the detection of heat that is not perceptive to the human eye. The police use this technology to capture fugitives, to aid in search-and-rescue efforts, and to locate indoor marijuana gardens. The application of thermal imaging allows authorities to scan homes for excessive heat. Abnormal heat expenditures may indicate ongoing criminal activity, such as marijuana cultivation where lights emit large amounts of thermal energy. A thermal scan of a home, when added to other evidence can amass to probable cause to issue a search warrant. The use of thermal imaging technology has been the subject of several Federal and State court opinions. The lower courts that have addressed this tool are split on the issue of whether thermal imaging is constitutionally permissible without a search warrant. Most courts that have considered the legality of thermal imaging without a warrant have used Justice Harlan’s two criteria from the case Katz v. U.S. (1967). These criteria are whether the person manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the heat or thermal energy leaving the home; and if the person manifested an expectation of privacy in the heat escaping the home, is this expectation of privacy one that society is willing to recognize as reasonable. A second line of legal reasoning is the determination of whether the government action revealed a person’s intimate matters. The case of Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) established that with few exceptions the warrantless search of a home was unreasonable and unconstitutional. The case limitation centers on technologies “not in general public use.” The term “general use” is not defined and open to subjective definition. A rule of “general use” would seem to bend to popular changes in technology use. The use of thermal imagers on targets other than the home are not discussed specifically. Despite these limitations, Kyllo v. U.S. has reaffirmed the strong protection the Fourth Amendment affords the home. 4 references