HEAT-SEEKING CAMERA INCITES DEBATE

A 4-year-old once disappeared in corn more than twice her height on a
large farm in Redwood County, Minn., prompting her frightened parents
to call for help. But before dozens of cops and a few police dogs
began searching on foot, police used a heat-seeking camera mounted on
a State Patrol helicopter and found her within 15 minutes.

Such technology has been the focus of controversy lately over how it
can be used in narcotics investigations. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled
last month that the cameras cannot be used to detect activities
inside a dwelling without a warrant. The decision and the
indoor-marijuana-cultivation case that led to it cast the devices as
invasive police surveillance, infringing on people's right to privacy.

In the 5-4 opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote of a
future where cameras could see through walls, giving police officers
X-ray vision into our lives.

But in Minnesota, that is low on law enforcement's priority list.
Instead, the cameras are used to search for missing children, people
missing from boats, fugitives and even tornado survivors caught in
rubble.

Looking for marijuana greenhouses accounts for only about 1 percent
of the camera's use in Minnesota, say those who use the equipment.

"Indoor growers are usually few and far between," said Skip Van
Patten, assistant special agent in charge for the Minnesota office of
the Drug Enforcement Administration. "For us, it's methamphetamine
and an increase in the clandestine labs."

The DEA here does not have such a camera. The State Patrol, a
division of the Department of Public Safety, owns the bulk of the
technology locally. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension also owns a
few hand-held units.

The State Patrol has three helicopter-mounted units and one hand-held
camera, plus all of the accessories, such as extra viewing monitors.
In all, the equipment is worth about $500,000.

The thermal cameras work by detecting energy. The images are
broadcast onto monitors that show images much like what someone
wearing night-vision goggles might see. Images that are white are
hot; anything dark is cold. On a winter day, the State Patrol was
chasing a suspect in a car. He drove into a residential development
and jumped out of the car. The snowy ground looked gray on the
monitor, but as the man - who was warm from the chase and appeared
bright white - ran through the snow, he left behind shiny white
footprints from the heat his feet gave off.

The cameras, however, cannot see through walls or even windows.
"There is a misconception about how sensitive it is and what it can
or can't detect," said State Patrol Capt. Mark Dunaski, who has used
the cameras for 10 years. "Anything that blocks electromagnetic
energy will also block the thermal imager. In some cases it's far
less intrusive than the naked eye."

Chuck Samuelson of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union disagrees. He
said people's right to privacy should always supersede technological
advances.

Before the State Patrol agrees to use the camera for a marijuana
case, an investigator must have detailed evidence of a growing
operation.

Hennepin County Chief Judge Kevin Burke said he doesn't believe
obtaining search warrants will be much of an issue. In his five years
of presiding over drug cases, he has never seen a case that involved
a thermal imager.

When the rare case presents itself, he said, law enforcement should
already have enough evidence to get search warrants for either
thermal imaging or a raid. "If it's a scarce resource, you'll only
deploy it when you really need it," he said. "It's probably a lot
more interesting of a decision for law and criminology professors to
sit around and analyze than it is for law enforcement, judges and the
public in the real world."