JUSTICES PROTECT YOUR CASTLE DOOR

Too many judges and police officers fail to give proper respect to the
Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches by the
government. A better name might be the 3 1/2 Amendment.

A worry is that technological advancements will make matters worse.
After all, can your home remain your castle in an age of intrusive
devices that hear and virtually see right through the walls? This week
the U.S. Supreme Court said yes.

A strong, reassuring yes.

In dispute was the police use of the Agema Thermovision 210. It's a
little-known device that detects infrared rays and converts them into
images. Federal authorities in Oregon, sitting in a parked car, used
the device to determine that Danny Kyllo had turned his home into a
marijuana hothouse.

In the past, the police would have needed to step inside Kyllo's home
to get that information. Usually that type of physical search of a
private residence requires a court-approved warrant based on probable
cause. The police never got a warrant to aim the Agema 210 at Kyllo's
home.

This week, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that was
unconstitutional. ``We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws a
firm line at the entrance to the house,'' wrote Justice Antonin Scalia
for the majority. ``That line, we think, must be not only firm but
also bright.''

A bright line was needed. .

This week the justices sent a clear message that they won't leave
homeowners at the mercy of advancing technology, which someday might
be able to discern all activities inside a house. The court basically
is saying people in their homes should have the level of privacy that
existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted in the 18th century.

Police can't use high-tech tricks to get around those protections.
Old-fashioned warrants still are necessary.

Legal commentators have called this a broad ruling in support of a
person's right to be left alone in the tech era. That's a bit of an
overstatement. This decision only covers home searches, not workplaces
and other spots where people might have lower privacy
expectations.

The justices will speak again on the clash of privacy rights and
high-tech police work. For now, a line has been drawn at your front
door.