ndicated that seemingly anomalous waste heat was radiating from the outside surface of the home, much like a trained police dog would be used to indicate that an object was emitting the odor of illicit drugs(Find Law). This analogy is difficult to parallel to the use of thermal imaging devices because drug dogs have no specific targets. In this case, Kyllos home was targeted. Circuit Court Judge Noonan also used an analogy in his dissent. The closest analogy is use of a telescope that, unknown to the homeowner, is able from a distance to see into his or her house and report what he or she is reading or writing. Such and enhancement of normal vision by technology, permitting the government to discern what is going on in the home, violates the Fourth Amendment(OTDNWU). Noonan, an advocate of privacy goes on to say, Such activities can cause the emission of heat from the home which the Agema 210 can detect. The activity will be reported as well as where it is taking place(Find Law). Noonan is suggesting that the decision of the court creates precedent and would protect the government from spying on people in their homes. However, previous cases that have already set precedent were also investigated.In the opinion of the court Hawkins mentions two specific sources of law. Hawkins writes, While a heightened privacy expectation in the home has been recognized for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis (Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S.), activities within a residence are not protected from outside, non-intrusive, government observation, simply because they are within the home or its curtilage (Florida v. Riley) (Find Law). These two sources of law give Hawkins opinion good justification but the dissent also finds legal precedent. In Montana v. Bullock and Peterson, 901 P.2d 61 (1995), the Supreme Court of Montana ruled: individuals have reasonable expectations of privacy (Find Law). In this case reasonable expectations of privacy can be in...
