The case involved the government's followup on an informant's tip. A thermal imagery expert used a FLIR from a public road approximately 30-40 meters away to scan the home. The FLIR displayed an isolated heat source, the government issued a subpoena to obtain the defendant's electricity bills, and all this information was used to obtain a search warrant. The authorities found a marijuana- growing operation in certain sheds. The court concluded that the use of a thermal imager was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and held that the evidence gathered when executing the warrant must be suppressed. However, the court's analysis was unduly expansive, given the wide range of information that a FLIR can reveal. Depending on its use in a particular case, an imager's scan may or may not be a search. The Field court focused on inappropriate uses of a FLIR rather than its permissible uses. A more appropriate approach to the use of FLIR would be to require the government to acquire a reasonable suspicion of indoor marijuana growth before using a FLIR and requiring the government to videotape its surveillance. Footnotes