Well, SCOTUS says they cannot do that. I would bet his lawyer is going to have a field day
Kyllo v. US
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[Decided June 11, 2001]
In a 5-4 ruling on June 11, 2001, the US Supreme Court ruled that the use of thermal imaging (infrared) scanners to look at homes for evidence of crimes is unconstitutional without a warrant. The majority issued a broad decision, suggesting that other types of high-tech gear which reduce privacy in the home are also disallowed without a warrant. This decision reverses a set of flip-flopped 9th Circuit Appeals Court decisions where the 9th Circuit first found in favor of Kyllo and then, after a judge resigned, it reheard the case and decided against Kyllo.
The decision was made by an unusual coalition of justices, with Scalia writing the majority opinion, quoting from elements of the ACLU's amicus brief in favor of increased Constitutional rights and Stevens, in dissent, arguing that the Right to Privacy does not protect against scanning devices. Two of the most conservative justices, Scalia and Thomas joined with the more liberal Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter and the liberal Stevens and moderate Kennedy joined with Rehnquist and O'Connor in dissent.
