Thermal/Infrared Imaging Use

Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Thermal/Infrared Imaging Use

Postby Administrator » Fri Oct 03, 2014 1:03 pm

Thermal/Infrared Imaging Use

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27; 121 S. Ct. 2038; 150 L. Ed. 2d 94; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4487; 69 U.S.L.W. 4431
Use of thermal-imaging device from public street to detect relative amounts of heat within home, which led to discovery of indoor marijuana growing operation, constituted a Fourth Amendment search and was presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

United States v. Cusumano, 67 F.3d 1497; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27924 [10th Cir. 1995]
Use of a thermal imager upon home did not violate privacy rights.

United States v. Robinson, 62 F.3d 1325; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24460 [11th Cir. 1996]
Aerial thermal surveillance of occupied, private residence was not privacy rights violation when defendant's inaction regarding emitted heat showed that he did not have a subjective expectation of privacy recognized as objectively reasonable. United States v. Ishmael, 48 F.3d 850; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 4957 [5th Cir. 1995] - Not an unreasonable intrusion on legitimate privacy expectations. United States v. Ford, 34 F.3d 992; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 26592 [11th Cir.1994] - Defendant made no attempt to conceal the heat, and because no intimate details were revealed.

United States v. Pinson, 24 F.3d 1056; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 11737 [8th Cir. 1994].
Use of infrared light device did not violate privacy interests and defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in heat emanating from his home.
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association

Return to “Invasion of Privacy: State Law”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests