It&#x27;s probably worth noting that Kyllo is one of the cases where the recently deceased Justice Scalia&#x27;s &quot;conservatism&quot; produced a decision favorable to privacy advocates:<p><pre><code>  We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws &quot;a firm line 
  at the entrance to the house,&quot; 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 &quot;significant&quot; 
  compromise of the homeowner&#x27;s privacy has occurred, we must 
  take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth 
  Amendment forward.

    &quot;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.&quot; 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 &quot;search&quot; and is 
  presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
</code></pre>
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar_case?case=15840045591115721227" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scholar.google.com&#x2F;scholar_case?case=158400455911157...</a>