HOW FAR CAN OFFICIALS GO IN SEARCHING HOMES?

Should we have the reasonable right to expect matters that occur in our
homes to remain private matters?

That is the issue the Supreme Court must take up as it considers the case
of the use of the thermal imaging device and its use by the police.

The justices heard arguments Tuesday in the case of an Oregon man convicted
of growing marijuana in his home. The man contends the use of a thermal
imaging device that picked up the heat signature of the lamps used for
indoor marijuana cultivation was an illegal search.

While we find the growth of marijuana a reprehensible offense, we also find
the question regarding use of the high-tech device one the justices were
right to take on.

Such issues weren't even a possible dream when the Constitution was
written, yet the Constitution used broad enough language to be open to
interpretation to fit whatever man has come up with so far.

The framers of the Constitution couldn't have conceived of automobiles.
Yet, the justices in the 20th century had to come up with rules regarding
search and seizure of items from motorists whose cars were stopped by police.

There are hundreds of other technological advances today just waiting for
such interpretation. The thermal-imaging camera is on such advance.

The devices can be put to unquestionable good use, such as finding people
trapped in burning buildings. And they can be useful law enforcement tools,
but the question is, how much law enforcement is possible before privacy is
eroded.

The government's case is based upon the question of what can be known by
what escapes from a house. If screams are heard and a reasonable
expectation is made that a murder is being committed, there is a right to
stop the crime. The government contends heat escapes naturally from a
house, so the heat signature of wavelengths of heat that can be seen with
the thermal imaging devices is similar to hearing sounds from an open window.

Justice Stephen Breyer stated the question isn't about the simple hearing
or seeing of something. He said if a person commits an act in front of an
open window, the right to privacy is lessened. He said if binoculars or
flashlights are used, the tools are common and anyone can use them.

But heat imaging cameras are the province today of the select few. Though
he didn't say it, governments and police agencies are among the few.

The justices were right in not shying away from the case, for it involves a
technology whose use will continue to grow in the future.

The only question that remains is one about just how far we should allow
government to go to check on our activities in our homes.