> The test is if the public expects audio in the home might be recorded and sent to a 3rd party. If the answer is "yes", then the police can use their own hardw

> The test is if the public expects audio in the home might be recorded and sent to a 3rd party. If the answer is "yes", then the police can use their own hardware to do the recording. Honest question, are you an attorney or can one comment? I am not, but I don't read this opinion the same way. The case referenced concerns using thermal imaging from outside a home to look inside it, which I guess makes sense then that if thermal imaging was super common maybe they would argue that its not a big deal to point one at a house by a cop, but thermal imaging is not common so it was ruled an unconstitutional search. But you seem to have taken that as the police being able to enter a residence and install a transmitting microphone just because most people have transmitting microphones inside the house. There's a huge difference in a search that requires entering a home and one that does not. SCOTUS actually seems pretty explicitly concerned in the text about technology eroding the expectation of privacy by the progressing deeper into a private residence without having to enter it, so that again implies this case was about technology being used to search a home without entering it.