[Mr Rogers]

Held:Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general
public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously
have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance
is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively unreasonable
without a warrant.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/case.html

[dirtboy]

Held:Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

And drug-sniffing dogs are also not in general public use, last I checked. SCOTUS contradicted its own precedent with this recent ruling.

[dirtboy]

Held:Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.

And drug-sniffing dogs are also not in general public use, last I checked. SCOTUS contradicted its own precedent with this recent ruling.