Right or wrong, the problem that the court had in Kyllo was that the infrared scope gave an indication as to what was going on inside the home. The Supreme Cou

Right or wrong, the problem that the court had in Kyllo was that the infrared scope gave an indication as to what was going on inside the home. The Supreme Court reasoned that the inside of the home was entitled to more privacy protection than a yard. The fear was that future infrared scopes would give the ability to see individual people moving around, or otherwise invade the privacy of the inside of the house. This case is more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo , where the police intentionally targeted a suspected marijuana farmer with a flyover (without a warrant). The farmer lost. I can't imagine the court would think that a ranch with cattle is entitled to more privacy protection than a fenced-in backyard growing pot. To my knowledge, no Supreme Court case has ever said that advanced visual optics can't be used outside the home.