COURT'S LIMITS ON POLICE ALLOW A HEALTHY BALANCE

It reads like something out of an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

Police use a high-tech thermal imaging device on the outside of a bad guy's
house to find out if he's growing marijuana inside.

The results show clear signs of high-intensity lights (needed to grow pot),
so police get a search warrant and scour the place.

Sure enough, they find what they're looking for.

In the Schwarzenegger movie, no one, not even the most curious neighbor,
would question the behavior or method.

It's all good guys vs. bad guys. In the real world, the Supreme Court
stepped in and put the kibosh on the plan.

Recently the Court ruled that law enforcement invaded Danny Lee Kyllo's
privacy in 1992 by employing a thermal imaging device outside his Oregon
house without a search warrant.

If they couldn't enter the house to get the evidence without a search
warrant, they must also have a warrant to use intrusive technology,
especially if the technology isn't available to the public, the majority
opinion decided.

Although the decision seems to have attracted more attention because of
which justices supported it and which didn't -- conservative Justice
Antonin Scalia surprisingly ruled against law enforcement, while liberal
Justice John Paul Stevens was in favor of officers using the equipment --
the focus should be on how it upholds the Constitution while providing for
public safety.

The decision manages the balance well. While no one would have much, if
any, sympathy for Danny Kyllo -- we're all sick and tired of druggies --
most of us want to maintain a reasonable amount of privacy.

If law enforcement can use a thermal imaging device on the outside of your
house without needing a search warrant first, what's next? This decision
wisely upholds the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches
while providing clear guidelines on the use of search warrants. Note, the
decision doesn't preclude the use of high-tech devices, but establishes the
need to obtain a search warrant first.

It won't be long before more detailed and intrusive technology is
available. Scalia even allowed for the eventuality of "imaging technology
that could discern all human activity in the home."

The decision should not be seen as a slap in the face of law enforcement or
a setback against the war on drugs.

Law officers face an increasingly difficult job, hampered by budget
constraints and a growing population. Yet, we cannot overlook the power of
police to take away an individual's freedom. With such power, comes
accountability. The Court's decision reflects a healthy perspective on both.