The Use Thermal Imaging in Law Enforcement

The Kyllo v. United States’ case in the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment

is violated when a thermal-imaging device is used to determine the amount of heat coming from

a private home, hence resulting in an unconstitutional search (Leger, 2001). Despite the

capability of law enforcement to utilize thermal-imaging devices from external locations to see

inside a property, and despite the courts’ approval of such devices to get details of locations that

have not been previously known without physical presence or intrusion as constituting a search,

it still violates the Fourth Amendment, thus not truly a search.

The Court posited that if law enforcement finds out the details of a home using a device

that is not open to the general public, and in the process revealing details that were previously

sketchy, without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a “search” and is presumed to be an

unreasonable search without a warrant. However, in my opinion, the use of a thermal-imaging

does not constitute a search since it violates the Fourth Amendment, and therefore no warrant is

needed. Additionally, the thermal-imaging devices detect heat coming out of the sides of a house

and not heat still in the house. Hence, it does not constitute a search. Since there is no intrusion

into the home, and the device can only detect information that has come out into the public

domain, it is not a search.

Reference

Leger, B. L. (2001). Thermal Imaging and the Fourth Amendment: The Government's High-

Tech Assault on a Once Treasured Haven-Kyllo v. United States, 533 US 27 (2001). S. Tex. L.

Rev., 43, 837.