Just to add a bit more information, the Kyllo v. US case was decided based on what a person would reasonably expect a member of the public to own. Many people

Just to add a bit more information, the Kyllo v. US case was decided based on what a person would reasonably expect a member of the public to own. Many people have planes that fly about, drones or whatnot. So you could expect random members of the public to have ways of taking arial pictures of your house. Therefore those do not violate your right to privacy. It's very unlikely for a member of the public to own a helicopter with an infrared camera, so using it without a warrant is a violation of privacy. The basic example used by a court is binoculars. Most people have access to binoculars, and own them. So if you do something next to your window, police can totally look through your windows with binoculars and act on the information.