October Term 2000 · Docket 99-8508
Does thermal imaging of a home violate the Fourth Amendment?
The dispute centers on whether warrantless thermal imaging of a residence constitutes an impermissible search.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Lerner stated the case involves thermal imaging of a home without a warrant.
Lerner asserted this constitutes an impermissible search under the Fourth Amendment.
Lerner described the home as the basic refuge for all citizens.
Dreeben explained thermal imaging senses heat gradients on the exterior of a surface.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case examines the legal status of using heat-detection technology on a home's exterior.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 20, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-39
What each side wants
Lerner seeks a ruling that the imaging is an illegal search.
Dreeben seeks a ruling that the imaging is not a search.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
What each side says
Lerner argues the home is a basic refuge protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Dreeben argues observing heat gradients on a surface is not a search.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
What the justices asked
Rehnquist noted the 200th anniversary of John Marshall's swearing in.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-21
Why it matters
The outcome defines the scope of privacy protections for residential spaces against modern surveillance tools.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-21 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-39
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 19-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 21-25
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.