PROTECTING PRIVACY FROM BEING BURNED

The Agema Thermovision is one amazing piece of technology. From the street,
it can detect the use of a hot tub, a fireplace, a kiln--anything that is
kicking off heat inside a home. The manufacturer claims that the device is
sensitive to temperature differences as little as one degree.

What it cannot do is specifically identify what the source of the heat is.
In 1992, police in Florence, Ore., using an Agema 210, suspected that the
heat coming from Danny Lee Kyllo's house was from grow lamps used in the
production of marijuana. And they were right.

The reading was used to get a warrant, and the subsequent search turned up
a growing operation.

Was this an abuse of police power?

The matter is before the U.S. Supreme Court, with Kyllo arguing that the
use of a thermal imager constitutes an illegal search, a violation of his
Fourth Amendment rights.

The government compares the thermal scan to a police officer watching a
house from the outside, which does not require a warrant, since the device
looks only at the heat escaping from the structure.

Kyllo and his supporters say police should not be able to monitor activity
behind closed doors without first obtaining a search warrant.

Though written 210 years ago, the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of "the
right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects"
and ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures" are timeless. One should
not expect blanket privacy in public places, and we have encouraged the use
of technology that advances safety.

Citizens do, however, have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their
homes. Perhaps not by scientific definition, but in effect thermal scans
allow law enforcement to pry into people's houses.

Splitting hairs about how technology works is secondary to what it actually
does. The Supreme Court should send a firm message about the appropriate
use of technology before it tramples the Fourth Amendment.

Cleaning Life's Stains

One of the fundamental tenets of justice is that criminals deserve a second
chance after they have served their time and are rehabilitated. However, in
some neighborhoods, a conviction--even if it has been overturned or
happened decades ago--is hindering many law-abiding men and women from
finding work. The problem has reached a critical stage on the West Side,
where a recent study showed 70 percent of men ages 18 to 45 are
ex-offenders. Those who cannot get jobs often commit new crimes to support
themselves and their families.

There is an alternative.

State Rep. Connie Howard (D-Chicago) is pushing modest proposals that could
remove a major impediment to giving ex-offenders a second chance: automatic
expungement of the record in certain classes of crimes. If charges are
withdrawn or a conviction is reversed because of factual innocence, the
accused's arrest record would be automatically expunged.

For some misdemeanor offenses, the record could be expunged after a
two-year waiting period if no other offenses were committed.

The waiting period would extend to five years for convictions of Class 4
felonies, the least severe category of felonies. People convicted of
serious crimes involving sex, guns or drunken driving would not be eligible
for automatic expungement. Law enforcement still would have access to
records sealed by expungement. All in all, Howard's proposals sound reasonable.