[jevinskie]

It would be, there is precedent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

> Department of the Interior used a thermal imaging device outside of Danny Lee Kyllo's home in Florence, Oregon. According to the District Court that presided over Kyllo's evidentiary hearing, the device could not "penetrate walls or windows to reveal conversations or human activities. The device recorded only heat being emitted from the home."

Hmmm, I wonder why the Department of the Interior is concerned with private residences in the first place? The reach of the War on Drugs is pretty incredible.

> The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the thermal imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, which was not commonly available to the public, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. The majority opinion argued that a person has an expected privacy in his or her home and therefore, the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches, even with technology that does not enter the home.

[mcintyre1994]

I just looked up the US Department of the Interior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_the_Interior) and I'm confused about what they were doing - the war on drugs seems way outside their stated purposes. The article on the ruling doesn't seem to mention it though, would it have been fine if they'd had a warrant? I don't even see why they are able to get search warrants for a home from their stated purpose.

Interesting and recent precedent though. I wonder if it would hold for a normal camera if a drone flew past a house at human walking height and took pictures of what's inside. I'm guessing a police officer can act on seeing something in a house they're walking past, if that's the case then what if a drone took a picture and an officer later or immediately saw it?

[maxerickson]

48% of the land in that county is owned by the federal government. It hammers the tax base:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_County,_Oregon#Economy

[jevinskie]

The recorded oral argument is very interesting to listen to.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508

[yashosky]

That is very interesting. I was surprised at how easily the discussion was getting off-track at first (flashlight), but it does pick up in the end. It seems the judges try to distill the issue by a process of adversarial questioning and taking things to extremes.

Also, Justice Souter is killing it.