] Three years ago, the high court surprised law enforcement
] experts by ruling that it was unconstitutional for drug
] agents to use heat-seeking devices to detect marijuana
] plants growing inside a home. Usually, the plants grow
] under hot lights that emit heat that can be detected from
] the street.
]
] But on Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of
] the 2001 opinion, said it did not mean the use of
] drug-sniffing dogs was unconstitutional. The heat
] detectors are a new technology that can, in effect, look
] inside a house, he said.
]
] "This is not a new technology. This is a dog," Scalia
] said.

...

] If the use of a sniffing dog is not a search, "why can't
] police go up to the front door of every house on the
] street?" asked Souter. When the homeowner comes to the
] door, the dog could sniff for drugs inside, he said.
]
] The government lawyers said police were unlikely to
] undertake such efforts.

!@#! Our Constitutional rights are not defined by technology, nor are they defined by what the police are "likely" or "unlikely" to do! A drug sniffing dog is a TOOL that is used to DETECT DRUGS.

There is no difference between a drug sniffing dog, and a silicon based air borne molecule detection device. They have the same application and they work the same damn way. Either they both constitute a search, or neither does!

Furthermore, Constitutional rights don't go away because they are "unlikely" to be abused!

The fact is that you EMIT PARTICLES that humans cannot detect without tools. Your drugs emit air-borne particles. Your grow lamps emit thermal energy. Your cellphone emits photons. So does your BRAIN.

Either its a search to detect these particles, or its not. If its not, we're going to have some serious privacy problems as we get better at detecting this stuff. If it is, then we're going to have a lot of bullshit security that doesn't really work.

We need to come to a realistic consensus on how to handle this.

Frankly, I think that if the police need special tools to detect the stuff, then it is a search, unless there are reasonable means that the person could go to if they wanted to conceal the particles, in which case its not a search.

Reasonable means would imply that drug sniffing dogs are a search, but listening to unencrypted radio communications are not a search. Cracking poorly encrypted radio communications is a search.

My 2 cents, but more valuable then a standard that says:
We can detect drug particles with a dog, but not a machine. Its OK for the cops to listen to unencrypted wireless communications, but its illegal for anyone else to do it, even accidentally. But using a thermal camera is a search... Its totally random and based on nothing but the whim of the court.

Stupid broken SCOTUS rulings