FLIR and other thermal imaging

Evidence rule

This page is public-interest research. An argument grade is not a court finding. A watchdog page describes the device. It is not proof a Nevada agency bought it or turned a feature on. A product description is not a Nevada practice. Agencies are not merged: the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Clark County School District, the City of Reno, and the Nevada Department of Public Safety stay separate. A hotlist hit is not a confirmed crime. Legal review of this page is unverified.

What it does

Thermal imaging, including FLIR, makes a picture from heat rather than from visible light. Pointed at a house, it can show activity inside that the eye cannot see. Pointed at open ground, it can show a person or a vehicle at night. EFF says drones can carry thermal cameras. That is a sensor note, not a Nevada flight.

Privacy watchdog concerns

Electronic Frontier Foundation. Drones and Robots. EFF says police drones can carry cameras, thermal sensors, plate readers, Wi-Fi sensors, and other tools, including tethered aircraft and drone-as-first-responder docks, and that this enables surveillance of people who are not suspects. EFF also wrote that, as of late 2022, the Clark County Sheriff in Nevada planned to buy 400 drones for first response. This page has not reviewed that purchase. The sentence is EFF’s claim, not a contract, and it is not relabeled here as an LVMPD deployment.

Constitutional issues

Established legal holding

Fourth Amendment, Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18

A decision discusses legal process for this kind of technique. No Nevada agency practice is documented here.

FLIR and other thermal imaging: Thermal imaging of a home is an established holding in Kyllo for the circumstances that case addressed. No Nevada FLIR inventory is documented, so Kyllo is not a finding about a Nevada flight. The helicopter card points here and does not restate the holding.

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). Established holding for this kind of technique. United States Supreme Court. Thermal imaging of a home with sense-enhancing technology was a search in the circumstances Kyllo addressed. That is not a Nevada deployment.
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). Does not decide this technology. United States Supreme Court. Ciraolo was naked-eye observation, not thermal imaging.

Statutes attached to read, not findings.

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Nevada use

Not documented on this page.

Holding identified. Nevada use is not documented.

Next record

FLIR and other thermal imaging: Request the thermal-imager inventory and the warrant rule.

All devices. A document workflow for this page is not built. The arrest correction form is not a surveillance-document inbox. Corrections and source documents for this page follow the corrections policy. Corrections policy.