COURT LIMITS USE OF HIGH-TECH SENSORS TO SMOKE OUT MARIJUANA GROWERS

Police searching for indoor marijuana growers cannot use high-tech sensors
to "scan" the exterior of homes for unusual heat emissions unless they
first obtain a search warrant, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

The court, in a 6-1 ruling Wednesday, said drug agents' use of a device
that detects heat from powerful indoor lights was akin to searching a home,
which requires probable cause and a warrant. The case involved a 1994
arrest by Erie County drug agents. An informant had told police that
marijuana plants were being grown inside a house. An Army National Guard
drug officer who was helping police scanned the house from the outside with
a device known informally as a "Wasp," which detects heat radiating from
sources such as furnaces or human bodies.

The device found that Gregory Gindlesperger's house was much warmer than
five nearby houses. A Guard officer said the heat in Gindlesperger's
basement was unlike the heat someone one would expect to see from a furnace.

Police then obtained a warrant, searched the house and said they found 21
marijuana plants under hot lights. Gindlesperger was convicted of drug
charges and sentenced to three to five years in prison.

He has remained free during his appeal with the permission of the trial
judge, Shad Connelly of Erie County.

"In the old days, if police were breaking down your door, you knew it.
These days, it doesn't take that physical penetration into the home anymore
for an invasion of privacy," said Elliot Segel, Gindlesperger's attorney.

Gindlesperger, a father of three in his 30s, said he was growing the
marijuana for personal use to treat deafness, ringing in his ears and
severe headaches.

"Obviously, this is a huge monkey off his back," Segel said of the high
court ruling.

Justice Stephen A. Zappala, writing for the court and supporting an earlier
Superior Court opinion, rejected an argument by prosecutors that the device
was no different than using a drug-sniffing dog.

Erie County District Attorney Joe Conti contended that aiming the device at
someone's house did not meet the legal definition of a search because it
involved no intrusion. He said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was
possible because the case involves the Fourth Amendment.

"Right now, our advice is that the device not be used pending the outcome
of any decision by the nation's highest court," Conti said.

Kevin Harley, a spokesman for Attorney General Mike Fisher, said the
devices are not widely used in the state.

Zappala said a trained dog can detect the presence of an illegal drug but
the sensor device spots heat that may come from legal or illegal sources.

He cited other court opinions in which the use of heat-seeking devices was
found to be "constitutionally repugnant" and said they "reveal intimate
details regarding activities occurring within the sanctity of the home."

The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to address the legality of the heat-seeking
devices, and rulings in appeals courts have been mixed, according to the
Pennsylvania court.

Justice Ronald D. Castille, who dissented in Wednesday's ruling, said
police use the device as they use binoculars.

He said police used the gear simply to confirm the informant's statements
and that Gindlesperger had "no reasonable expectation of privacy in the
heat vented from his home as a result of his agricultural activity."