Whether the use of a thermal imaging device to detect heat emanating from a home constitutes a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• Discussed · D.Or.United States v. Kyllo809 F.Supp. 787
• Discussed · M.D.Pa.United States v. Deaner1992 WL 209966
• Discussed · D.HawaiiUnited States v. Penny-Feeney773 F.Supp. 220
• Discussed · E.D.Tex.United States v. Ishmael843 F.Supp. 205
• Discussed · Wash.State v. Young123 Wash.2d 173

  “Young, 123 Wash.2d 173 , 867 P.2d 593 (1994), found the infrared surveillance of the home of an individual suspected of growing marijuana was sufficiently invasive to invoke the protections of both the federal and state constitutions: "The infrared thermal detection investigation represents a particularly intrusive method of surveillance which reveals information not otherwise lawfully obtained about what is going on within the home.” Id.” — United States v. Olson, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Doctrines & tests:

reasonable expectation of privacy

Constitutional provisions:

Fourth Amendment