INFRARED CAMERAS PUT TO TEST IN COURT CASE

The ability of police forces to use infrared cameras to spot marijuana
grow operations is being tested before a B.C. Supreme Court judge.

A special constable with the Kelowna RCMP gave the court a
demonstration Thursday of how police use Forward Looking Infrared
(FLIR) cameras to see "hot spots" on the roofs of homes.

Special Const. Paul Koovisk said the cameras can see these tell-tale
signs of the immense heat being created by 1,000 watt lights used to
grow marijuana indoors as it's vented outdoors.

It's expected that the case of Lawrence Federink could be a defining
case before the courts on the subject.

He is charged with growing and possessing a significant amount of
marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and theft of electricity to
power the lights.

The FLIR helped form a search warrant for police to enter the home and
dismantle a grow operation.

Federink's lawyer Kelly Christiansen, is arguing that using an
infrared camera attached to a helicopter is an unreasonable search by
the police, subject to protection of the charter.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently ruled that police cannot use the
cameras without a search warrant.

But other court rulings, mostly in B.C., have found there is no
expectation of privacy from the heat being emitted from a home.

Koovisk showed Justice Robert Metzger exactly how the cameras work.
They detect surface heat only and cannot depict images like a typical
camera. It cannot "see" inside windows or through walls.

On this occasion, during a blitz of Lake Country marijuana growers in
2001, Koovisk used the camera through the RCMP helicopter to scan some
half-dozen homes in the area to confirm the presence of grow operations.

The still images from the camera show mostly darkness but for a bright
light in the vague shape of a roof.

Koovisk said the power line to the home was also visible because it
was supplying so much more electricity to the home compared to other
homes in the neighbourhood.

He agreed with Christiansen that the camera could accidentally pick up
legitimate heat emissions such as a hot tub or a pottery kiln, but
only under certain conditions.

The bulk of the trial has completed but arguments in the case had to
be delayed due to a lack of court time.