It's probably worth noting that Kyllo is one of the cases where the recently deceased Justice Scalia's "conservatism" produced a decision favorable to privacy a

It's probably worth noting that Kyllo is one of the cases where the recently deceased Justice Scalia's "conservatism" produced a decision favorable to privacy advocates: We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws "a firm line at the entrance to the house," Payton, 445 U. S., at 590. That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright— which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that no "significant" compromise of the homeowner's privacy has occurred, we must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward. "The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which will conserve public interests as well as the interests and rights of individual citizens." Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149 (1925). Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15840045591115721227 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=158400455911157...