] 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.

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!

[ Agreed. I would think that the limitations on search should pertain to any mechanism by which "things that would otherwise be private" are discovered. The mechanism may be an infrared scanner, or it may be a highly trained German Shepherd, but in both cases the police are using a tool to detect something that would otherwise not be detectable.

Now, the merits of this activity may happily be debated, but I agree that it's inconsistent to differentiate the tools based on their modernity. The infrared detectors don't "look inside" the house any more than the dog does. Both detect particles that are being emitted by something inside, and react to concentrations thereof. Seems dumb. My $0.02. -k]

Stupid broken SCOTUS rulings