Technology redrawing privacy lines

The Supreme Court hears a case next week that will test whether police violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches when they used heat-detection equipment to find a homegrown marijuana operation.

"I think the average American, myself included, is only beginning to realize the cost of technology ... is a loss of personal privacy," said American Bar Association President Martha Barnett.

ABA committees representing a dozen different legal specialties are evaluating the impact of technology on their practice areas, Barnett said at the winter meeting of the 400,000-member organization.

Police and prosecutors often argue that technology merely improves on the human eye, ear or touch without altering any fundamental expectation of individual privacy.

Technology already exists to check pupil dilation secretly for signs of drug use, or breath for evidence of alcohol, without police ever laying a hand on a potential suspect.

Hundreds of police departments are using the "P.A.S. III Sniffer," a tiny battery-powered alcohol detector, during traffic stops.

An officer shines a flashlight into a car after a traffic stop, and the device sucks in the motorist's breath. A driver who tested clean would likely drive away none the wiser.

Civil liberties groups say the device violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Fourth Amendment, but the device's manufacturer says there have been no lawsuits.<