INFRA-RED CAMERAS NO THREAT TO PRIVACY

Top Court Gives Police Right To Seek Grow-Ops

OTTAWA -- Police tactics to root out marijuana grow-ops by using
infra-red aerial surveillance do not contravene the constitutional
right to privacy in one's home, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday.

The decision is a departure from the law in the United States, where
the high court ruled three years ago that it is unconstitutional for
police to use the thermal heat cameras without a judge's warrant
because of the need to protect the home "from prying government eyes."

The Canadian Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the cameras,
which are used to detect external "hot spots" that may indicate the
presence of electricity-gobbling grow-ops, are "non-intrusive" and
"mundane" in the information that they reveal.

The decision is a loss for Walter Tessling, who said police violated
his Charter of Rights protection against unreasonable search and
seizure by using an infra-red aerial camera over his home outside
Windsor, Ont.

The ruling restores his conviction and sentence of 18 months in jail
for possessing 120 marijuana plants.

"Living as he does in a land of melting snow and spotty home
insulation, I do not believe that the respondent had a serious privacy
interest in the heat patterns on the exposed external walls of his
home," Justice Ian Binnie wrote in the 7-0 decision. The Supreme Court
rejected a ruling from the Ontario Court of Appeal that the
surveillance technique merits a warrant because the detected heat may
come from "perfectly innocent" private activities, such as taking a
bath or using lights at unusual hours.

"The nature of the intrusion is subtle but almost Orwellian in its
theoretical capacity," said the 2003 ruling, authored by Justice
Rosalie Abella, who has since been promoted to the Supreme Court.

Binnie confined the court's ruling to the infra-red technology as it
exists today and said any advancements will be dealt with by the
courts "step by step."