NEW TOOLS DON'T JUSTIFY EXCEPTION

Drug agents used a thermal imager to try to figure out what was goin
on in the home of Danny L. Kyllo.

The instrument can detect infrared radiation, which is to say that it
can pick up on unusual heat. The agents were thus able to figure out
that Kyllo was probably using lots of light bulbs to help grow marijuana.

They were then able to obtain a search warrant: they found marijuana,
and they arrested Kyllo.

The case is now in the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices will
decide if agents standing outside a home and looking inside by means
of such a device is equivalent to the unconstitutional practice of an
unreasonable search. If common sense is a guide, it is.

In a case such as this one, which involves high-tech instruments the
country's founders never imagined, it obviously is crucial to focus on
the principle incorporated in the constitutional language that they
crafted. They had to have understood that unfettered searches by
police could in fact result in bringing large numbers of criminals to
justice.

Their concern clearly was something else: to protect the dignity of
the person from governmental intrusiveness and make homes as nearly
inviolable under law as reasonableness would permit - even at the risk
of some criminals escaping detection.