In Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), law enforcement officials used a thermal imaging device to detect the presence of warm objects behind walls. (Kyllo, supra, 533 U.S. at p. 29.) Specifically, police used the device to scan the defendant's home to detect halide lights used in an indoor marijuana growing operation. (Id. at p. 30.) In that case, government agents had scanned the exterior of the defendant's home late at night. They found that some of the walls were emitting more heat than other portions of the home and more heat than other homes in the area. Based on the thermal imaging and other evidence, officers obtained a search warrant and discovered marijuana being grown in the home. The court held that when the government deploys a device not in general public use in order to explore the details of a home's interior that otherwise would not have been known without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant. (Id. at p. 34.) The Supreme Court held that "obtaining by sense-enhancing technology a thermal imaging device any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical 'intrusion into a constitutionally protected area'... constitutes a search- at least where the technology in question is not in general public use." Id. at 34. Justice Scalia noted that this test "assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted." Id. at 34 Similarly, barring remote-controlled cameras from videotaping secret jury deliberations assures preservation of that degree of privacy for jurors that existed when article 36.22 was first enacted. The government contended that its use of thermal-imaging equipment, deployed from a public thoroughfare, to collect heat that had fully escaped from a suspect's home into the public domain, violated no privacy interest. 533 U.S. at 35. The Court disagreed and held that the government's collection "by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical 'intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,' constitutes a search--at least where the technology in question is not in general public use." Id. at 34. Thus, the Court has made clear that neither the ability of sensory-enhancing equipment to collect information from emanations that have escaped into a public area, nor an officer's deployment of that equipment from a lawful location, immunizes such a probe of a home from constitutional scrutiny. See id. at 34-35. In Kyllo the Supreme Court rejected the government's argument that, because the heat sensors only detected energy that had permeated walls and left the home, they did not actually look into the home, but rather only detected the heat present outside the home. 533 U.S. at 35-36. The Court rejected this distinction because the radiating heat disclosed information about areas and details inside a home, information which it found to be private and protected. Id. at 37-38. The Court held the use of a thermal imaging device to detect relative amounts of heat within a home constituted a search for Fourth Amendment purposes, and hence the warrantless use of the device to investigate a suspected marijuana grow operation was constitutionally impermissible. (Id. at pp. 29, 34-35.) The court reasoned that privacy expectations are heightened for a home; the police had engaged in more than naked-eye surveillance of the home; and the heat information obtained by the police concerned matters about the inside of the home even though the imaging did not actually penetrate the home. (Id. at pp. 33-40.) The court concluded that "obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical 'intrusion into a constitutionally protected area' constitutes a search . . . ." (Id. at p. 34.) T he Kyllo court distinguished its holding in Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986), which found the use of advanced aerial photography to obtain images of the open areas of a commercial property did not constitute a search. (Id. at p. 239.) Kyllo explained, "Dow Chemical . . . involved enhanced aerial photography of an industrial complex, which does not share the Fourth Amendment sanctity of the home." (Kyllo, supra, at p. 37.) In Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), a divided Supreme Court held that thermal imaging amounted to a search. The Supreme Court majority held that "obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical 'intrusion into a constitutionally protected area' constitutes a search--at least where the technology in question is not in general public use." Id. at 2043 .