In the case of Florida v. Robert A. Thomas, 2000, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a police officer's use of a thermal-imaging device from outside a home to detect relative amounts of heat within constitutes an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. The defendant, Robert A. Thomas had been convicted for growing marijuana in his house after police used thermal imaging technology to identify unusual heat patterns consistent with high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth without obtaining a warrant first. The court ruled that using such technology constituted as "search" and thus required a valid warrant under normal circumstances because it intruded upon the privacy rights protected by Fourth Amendment which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Florida v. Robert A. Thomas argued that the majority's decision to uphold Thomas' conviction was a violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenting justices believed that there was insufficient evidence to justify the initial stop by law enforcement officers, making all subsequent evidence obtained during this encounter inadmissible in court. They contended that without this evidence, there would not have been enough proof to convict Thomas beyond a reasonable doubt for drug possession charges he faced. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential racial profiling implications as well as broader impacts on civil liberties if such police practices were allowed to stand unchallenged.