Reference no: EM131240502

1. Suspicious that marijuana was being grown in eventual defendant DK's home, federal agents used a thermal imaging device to scan his home from a public street. The agents sought to determine whether the amount of heat emanating from the home (which was part of a triplex) was consistent with the amount emanated from high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. The scan showed that the roof and a side wall were relatively hot compared with the rest of the home and substantially warmer than the neighboring units. Based in part on the thermal imaging results, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search the home, where the agents found marijuana growing. After being indicted on a federal drug charge, DK unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home. He then entered a conditional guilty plea under which, on appeal, he could challenge the use of the thermal imaging device and the validity of the resulting warrant. The government took the position that the use of the device, when operated from a public street, was not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and that DK therefore did not have a basis for his Fourth Amendment-based challenge. Was the government correct in this argument?

2. Mann was the attorney for the Town of Rye, a New York community. He filed a defamation lawsuit against a newspaper that served the Rye area and against the writer of that newspaper's Town Crier column. Mann based his case on statements that appeared in the column. The writer of the column referred to Mann as a “political hatchet man” and as “one of the biggest powers behind the throne in local government.” The writer also asserted that “Mann pulls the strings” and raised the question whether Mann was “leading the Town of Rye to destruction.” What arguments should the defendants make in an effort to avoid defamation liability? Should Mann win his case?