I think someone in that situation won an argument in court that this is an illegal search. Infrared cannot be admissable in a court of law, I think.
I am not sure about the infrared bit but here is an interesting snippet. I was on a task force a couple years back and we were able to make a case on a marijuana grow operation just on smell. I couldn't believe it either but the broad facts were: We got a tip about a small grow operation inside a semi trailer parked on a piece of property. When we got there noticed two huge ventilation stacks and an air conditioner hard wired into the trtailer. As we approached it, we could clearly smell marijuana. The defense tried to suppress it but since I am a qualified expert witness in drug identification and investigation the judge allowed my testimony and findings. We seized over 30 pounds of weed which in my state is a trafficking amount and about $20,000 in hydroponics equipment. I guess it depends on the venue and the judge, I am in the south so there is still a hint of conservatism and the judge just wasn't going to let an operation like that go without someone paying the price. Interesting, huh?
Negative....Heat seeking signatures are huge part of admissible evidence...which leads to power bills being subpoenaed and the questioning of neighbors and vendors...etc..etc..
Watch speaking in absolutes. Regionally we can not patrol with our aviation unit looking for heat signatures anymore. However.... If our aviation unit is en-route to a call and happens to see a large heat signature and marks it for investigation then the rules change a little. Shedding first hand light is all.
I'm curious to know how you felt about that in pre-planning and execution considering you've said that you've had more trouble with drunks than with pot smokers?
Easy buddy. I misread your original post and wrote something I eventually deleted. Disregard was a place holder while I deleted.