COURT RULES AGAINST DEVICE IN DRUG CASES

The Justices Said Using A Heat-Detection Tool To Find Marijuana Indoors
Violated The Fourth Amendment.

PITTSBURGH - Police may not use a heat-revealing device to gather evidence
about whether someone is growing marijuana indoors with high-powered
lights, the state Supreme Court said.

The court said Wednesday that a 1994 stakeout by Erie County drug agents
equipped with a device that detected extreme heat violated Fourth Amendment
protections against unreasonable searches.

An informant had told Erie County police that a small indoor marijuana farm
was operating in a house.

A National Guard officer who was helping police inspected the house with a
device known informally as a Wasp. It detects heat radiating from sources
such as 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 obtained a warrant, searched the house, and said they found 21
marijuana plants under hot lights. Gindlesperger was convicted of drug
charges and sentenced by a judge in 1996 to three to five years in prison.

He has remained free during his appeal with the permission of the trial judge.

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

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

Erie County District Attorney Joe Conti said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court was possible because the case involved 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," he said.

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

Zappala said a trained dog could detect the presence of an illegal drug,
but the device spots heat that could come from either a legal or an illegal
source.

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.