That sounds like an out of context composite of concepts of dubious context. It was in the context of 'search vs in plain view' as distinctions and general avai

That sounds like an out of context composite of concepts of dubious context. It was in the context of 'search vs in plain view' as distinctions and general availability was meant in terms of what was acceptable for technology to count as in 'plain view'. The thermals were 'in plain view' technically but given that the technology was highly expensive and of limited application it was clearly disingenuous if the general public couldn't access it. Essentially the argument is that just because a signal is emitted doesn't mean that the police have an automatic right to observe or decode it beyond a common observer. Essentially if they had patrol bots on the street with human level hearing it is still 'in plain view' levels. If they started pointing parabolic microphones or laser mikes at people's houses that would be beyond plain view and into an outright search. If that suggested interpretation jurisprudence were applied then audio bugs should have long been perfectly legal and not a search as nearly-everyone is already capable of hearing sounds and remembering them.