ion, that the use of thermal imaging systems was unconstitutional. The government petitioned for a rehearing and the case went back to the 9th Circuit which retired one judge and picked up another. This time the decision was 2-1, holding that the monitoring of heat emissions by a thermal imaging system does not intrude upon Kyllos privacy. Kyllo recently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where the case is currently pending with arguments expecting to be heard in 2001. The main issue is a concern of privacy and how far the government can intrude into the lives of citizens. With technology developing so rapidly it is difficult to rely on the interpretations of the 4th Amendment and statutes that do not incorporate the newest technologies. The question being asked to the Supreme Court is: Does the 4th Amendment protect against warrantless use of a thermal imaging device which monitors heat emissions from a persons private residence? The current holding of the U.S. District Court in Oregon and affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would suggest that the Supreme Court would further affirm that decision. However, the 9th Circuit Court holds only three judges and that court had already reversed and remanded the decision made by the District Court. In order to predict what the Supreme Court will decide it is important to investigate the legal reasoning behind the previous decisions made in the lower courts. Investigating the case further requires that we investigate the reasons for the decisions already made. In the opinion of the court, Circuit Judge Hawkins gives reasons for the initial findings of the District Court of Oregon. The opinion states, the district court found that it (Agema 210) was a non-intrusive device which emits no rays or beams and shows a crude visual image of the heat being radiated from the outside of the house (Find Law). Hawkins goes on further in the opinion to say that The Agema 210 scan simply i...
