This is certainly an unscientific ruling. Assuming that warrantless spying with a regular camera is illegal, then warrantless spying with a thermal imaging device should be just as illegal.

The only difference in these two examples is the wavelength of light being viewed. It is just as ridiculous as if the police were allowed to spy on you wearing blue lensed sunglasses, but not while wearing yellow lensed sunglasses.

That's scary. So basically they can just drive up and down the street and use thermal imagining to spy on anyone and if they happen to run accross a crime in process then BINGO!

So which states still have sodomy laws?

Well, since they can use OnStar to remotely stop your car, pop the trunk, and open your doors anyway - without a warrant - if they say they're police - does it matter?

I wonder if OnStar has thermal imaging BigBrother (TM) cameras?

Josh,

Is slog your new version of e-mail?

The key issue here seems to be what constitutes reasonable versus unreasonable suspicion, which, granted requires a lower threshhold of evidence than "probable cause", but which nevertheless would seem to hold to the provisions of the 4th Amendment.

Based on the affidavit of a Cooperating Defendent (read: informant), along with other corroborating evidence such as a review of the defendent's utility consumption, his prior conviction for similar offenses, and direct observation of the premeses, it would appear that the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension - whatever that is - was able to establish a suitable level of "reasonable suspicion" to justify seeking a warrant for use of the thermal imaging.

So, it's not exactly like the cops just randomly drove up-and-down the street with an IF scanner looking for any odd activity going on inside each-and-every house they encountered until they found something odd; they instead were able to establish a systematic set of evidentiary components; previous drug conviction on the part of the owner, first-hand witness of a grow operation (by an admittedly suspect witness, but a witness nonetheless), abnormally high power consumption, etc., to feel confident enough in their suspicions to request, and be granted a search warrant.

I don't want to sound like an appologist for the fuzz, especially given my own previous pro-pot postings, but it also seems pretty clear to me that the process and procedures they used were specific, focused, and given proper judicial oversight, so regretably, based on the law as it stands, my decidedly layman's opinion is that the 8th Circuit made the right call on this one.

Still sucks, though.

It is worth noting that the Washington Supreme Court interprets that State Constitution as being more restrictive than the Fourth Amendment.

The use of thermal imaging by police is not legal in Washington (per the Washington Supremes).

Actually, Paul @ 6, the Washington Supreme Court said that thermal imaging searches of residences WITHOUT WARRANTS were unconstitutional under BOTH the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution (our parallel privacy provision). As long as police obtain a warrant first, they can (and do) use thermal imaging here. The case is State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 867 P.2d 593 (1994). You correctly point out that our courts have interpreted Article I, section 7 to provide greater protection to individuals in Washington than the Fourth Amendment, and hopefully this means that Washington courts will require the same level of probable cause for residential thermal imaging warrants as is required for warrants permitting physical searches of homes.

So, these people growing herb in their attics haven't heard of insulation? Sorry, for the investment required for a reasonable in-house growing operation, a few thousand for insulation and double-paned windows and maybe even a quiet generator doesn't seem like that much additional capital investment. I'm not convinced I should be sympathetic with those who were caught.

@8:
You know, other than the whole "wasn't hurting anybody and one should be able to grow whatever one wants" thing. Right?

@9
true. I said I wasn't convinced, this ambivalence is based on the "wasn't hurtin' anyone/thing" notion but also on the "was obviously breaking the law" notion, too. Evidence seemed to suggest (or story line, anyway) that the suspicion of illegal activity was growing around them. You never really want to draw attention to yourself if you're clearly engaged in an illegal activity, especially one with felony charges and even the remotest possibility of Fed involvement. These guys are probably lucky it was only the local cops.

Yeah, the 4th amendment stuff bothers me deeply, but it is the 8th Circuit, the 6th would have another opinion, and the Supremes, whenever it got to them, would have still another - albeit more final - opinion.

I just with the opinion were narrower and more specific to this instance. But, hey, it's the midwest, you know, lots of religious types who are law-abiding citizens and who appreciate and respect authority.

I am actually the closest to Kattaria and found this blog. The whole thing was a mess from the start with the investigator but I will tell you this....They never had a subpoena to pull the electrical usage of the house. They lied and said they obtained a subpoena to contact the electrical company, but after review, they concluded they never had one. They illegally obtained this information which led to getting the search warrants for the physical search.