UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 94-40159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ROHN MARTIN ISHMAEL and

DEBRA K. ISHMAEL,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(March 15, 1995)

Before REYNALDO R. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

DeMOSS, Circuit Judge:

Based on the readings from a thermal imager, along with other

circumstantial evidence, federal law enforcement officers obtained

a warrant to s earch the premises of Rohn Martin Ishmael and his

wife, Debra K. Ishmael. The officers executed the warrant and

discovered some firearms and 770 marijuana plants. After being

indicted, the Ishmaels moved to suppress the evidence on the ground

that the warrantless use of the t hermal imager was a

constitutionally proscribed search. The district court granted the

Ishmaels' motion to suppress. We now reverse.2 I.

The warrant in this case was based upon the following

information: In the late summer of 1992, a confidential source

inf ormed Paul Black, a Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA")

officer, that he/she had delivered numerous truck loads of concrete

re-mix to the Ishmaels' secluded, rural property in Nacogdoches

County, Texas. The Ishmaels, according to the source, took

inordinate measures to conceal the need for the concrete. Rohn

Ishmael, for example, would manually mix the concrete near the

source's truck and then drive the concrete to another location on

the property. His suspicions aroused, Black entered the property

and s aw two mobile homes and a trailer. Black, however, did not

witness any illegal activity.

In August 1993, Black resumed his investigation. He and three

other officers returned to the property and followed a roughly

built road from the front of the property to a steep e mbankment

where a large hole had been made. They observed around 60 empty

bags of cement, a dump truck and a concrete re-mixer parked near

the hole. The next day, Black investigated Rohn Ishmael's criminal

record and found at least four separate marijuana-related incidents

dating back to 1974, several of which involved the cultivation of

marijuana. Black, along with other DEA officers, then surveyed the

Ishmaels' property by air. They observed a mobile home and a large

steel building, separated by about 200 to 300 yards. The steel

building stood next to a 2-acre pond. Black entered the property

on foot two more times. He discovered that the Ishmaels had built3

a structure beneath the steel building. The substructure was wired

for electricity and was being fed water from the nearby pond by way

o f exposed rubber tubes and a water pump. The substructure also

had an exhaust fan, which Black noticed was continuously running.

Black also observed a nearby pallet containing 100 5-gallon plastic

buckets.

Suspecting that the Ishmaels were cultivating marijuana in the

structure beneath the steel building, the DEA boarded a helicopter

with a thermal imager and flew over the Ishmaels' property at

a pproximately 500 to 1000 feet. A thermal imager detects

differences in surface temperature of targeted objects and displays

those differences through a viewfinder in varying shades of white

and gray. In other words, a warm object will appear white on the

device's viewfinder, whereas a cool object will appear gray. The

device can record its readings on a standard videocassette. The

DEA's recording of the Ishmaels' property showed that, although the

w ater entering the substructure was noticeably cool, the water

exiting it was emitting a substantial amount of heat. The

recording additionally showed that the ground adjacent to the

substructure was much warmer tha n the ground further from the

substructure.

Black then subpoena ed the Ishmaels' telephone records. The

records indicated that the Ishmaels had made numerous calls to

various horticulture shops, two of which appeared on a narcotics

intelligence computer ba se as suppliers for other marijuana

cultivators. Black also subpoenaed the Ishmaels' electrical4

utility records. The records showed that the substructure's power

usage was extremely high and far exceeded the mobile home's power

usage.

In September 1993, Bl ack and several other officers again

entered the Ishmaels' property on foot. Using a hand-held thermal

imager, the officers canvassed the perimeter of the steel building

but never entered it. The officers made essentially the same

findings; an unusual amount of heat was emanating from the

substructure and the ground adjacent to it. Black displayed his

recordings to two DEA thermographers, both of whom concluded that

the Ishmaels were ill egally cultivating marijuana in the steel

build ing's substructure. The DEA then used the thermal imager's

readings, along with the wealth of information gathered by Black,

to obtain a warrant to search the steel building and its

substructure on the Ishmaels' property. The officers executed the

warrant two days later and uncovered 770 marijuana plants and

several firea rms. After being indicted in October 1993, the

Ishmaels moved to suppress th e evidence obtained pursuant to the

search warrant. They argued that the readings from the thermal

imager consti tuted an unconstitutional search and that, without

those readings, the DEA did not have probable caus e to obtain a

warrant.

The district court granted the motion to suppress in January

1994. S ee United States v. Ishmael

, 843 F. Supp. 205 (E.D. Tex.

1994). The court employed a burden-shifting analysis. The burden,

it observed, initiated with the Ishmaels to demonstrate that they5

had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court concluded that,

although the steel structure was outside the curtilage of the home,

the Ishmaels nonetheless had exhibited a reasonable expectation of

privacy. I d

. at 209-12. Specifically, it noted that "the Ishmaels

had a rea sonable expectation that their effects, associated with

the secreted metal building and the business being conducted there,

were safe from [g]overnmental surveillance." I d

. at 211. Pointing

to Florida v. Riley

, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), and California v.

Ciraolo

, 476 U.S. 207 (1986), the government argued t hat the

Ishmaels did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the

DEA's air surveillances. The court rejected the government's

argum ent, reasoning that those cases were limited e xclusively to

naked-eye observations. Id . at 211-12.

According to the district court, the burden t hen shifted to

the government to prove that its search fell with in one of the

several recognized except ions to the warrant requirement. The

government, relying on Dow Chemical Company v. United States , 476

U.S. 227 (1986), argued below that the heat emissions were in

"plain view." The court rejected the "plain view" argument on the

ground that the heat emissions would not be in plain view without

the use of "sophisticated technology," namely the thermal imager.

Id

. at 212. Alternatively, the government analogized the heat

emissions to curb-side garbage (as in California v. Greenwood

, 486

U.S. 35 (1988)) and the scent of cocaine emanating from luggage (as6

in United States v. Place , 462 U.S. 696 (1983)): because each has

been effectively abandoned, the defendant no longer has a

s ubjective expectation of privacy in its concealment. The court

rejected the government's analogies on the ground that the relative

sophistication of the thermal imager poses a greater intrusion than

officers manually rummaging through abandoned garbage or a trained

police dog alerting to a suitcase carrying contraband. I d

. at 212-

13.

Having found that the use of the thermal imager constituted a

search proscribed by the Fourth Amendment, the court proceeded to

determine whether the remaining evidence amount e d to probable

cause. The court noted that the DEA had no direct evidence of

illegal activity taking place on the Ishmaels' property. I d

. at

213-14. The court stated, "The evidence of their activity was

consistent with developing a new patented strain of African

violets, and innumerable other perfectly legal activities." I d

. at

214. On this basis, the court concluded that a judge would not

find that probable cause existed for issuing a warrant, and it

therefore granted the Ishmaels' motion to suppress. The government

now appeals the district court's holdings that the warrantless use

of the thermal imager was unconstitutional and tha t, absent its

readings, probable cause did not exist for the issuance of the

warrant.

II.

A.1 See United States v. Myers

,

___ F.3d

___, 1995 WL 38118 (7th

Cir. 1995); United States v. Robertson

, 39 F.3d 891 (8th Cir.

1994); United States v. Kyllo

, 37 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 1994); United

States v. Ford

, 34 F.3d 9 92 (11th Cir. 1994); U nited States v.

Pinson

, 24 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 1994); U nited States v. Olson

, 21

F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. Deaner , 1 F.3d 192 (3d

1993); United States v. Feeney

, 984 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir. 1993);

State v. Young

, 867 P.2d 593 (Wash. 1994); United States v. Field

, 855 F. Supp. 1518 (W.D. Wis. 1994); United States v. Domitrovich

, 852 F. Supp. 1460 (E.D. Wash. 1994); United States v. Porco

, 842 F.

Supp. 1393 (D. Wyo. 1994); United States v. Deaner

, 1992 WL 209966

(M.D. Pa. 1992); United States v. Kyllo , 809 F. Supp. 787 (D. Or.

1992), vacated on other grounds

, 37 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 1994);

United States v. Penny-Feeney

, 773 F. Supp. 220 (D. Haw. 1991),

aff'd on other grounds

, 984 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir. 1993); s ee also

Lisa J. Steele, Waste Heat and Garbage: The Legalization of

Warrantless Infrared Searches , 29 C RIM

. L. B ULL . 19 (1993).

2 In United States v. Broussard

, 987 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1993),

the defendant moved to suppress certain evidence on the ground that

the affidavit the government submitted in requesting a warrant was insufficiently detailed. In affirming the district court's denial

of the motion, we noted that, to the extent that the affidavit was

i nadequate, the warrant was nonetheless valid because t h e

government had supplied findings from a thermal imaging device.

7 I n reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to

suppress, we review the court's conclusions of law de novo and its

findings of fa ct for clear error. U nited States v. Cardenas

, 9

F.3d 1139, 1147 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Sanders

, 994 F.2d

200, 202-03 (5th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, we view the evidence in

a light most favorable to the prevailing party, United States v.

Piaget

, 915 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1990), which in this case is

the Ishmaels.

B.

The warrantless use o f thermal imagers by the police has

spawned a fair amount of search and seizure jurisprudence over the

last several years. 1 Though the Fifth Circuit has yet to squarely

address this issue, 2 three of our sister circuits have, and eachId

. at 222. Because the defendant did not challenge the

constitutionality of the warrantless use of the device, we did not

address the issue. S ee also United States v. Zimmer

, 14 F.3d 286,

288 (6th Cir. 1994).

8 has concluded that such use is not a "search" proscribed by the

Fourth Amendment. U nited States v. Myers

, 1995 WL 38118, at *2-*3

(7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ford , 34 F.3d 992, 995-97 (11th

Cir. 1994); United States v. Pinson

, 24 F.3d 1056, 1058-59 (8th

Cir. 1994). We now hold that the warrantless use of a thermal

imager in an "open field" does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

1.

The Fourth Amendment provides in part: "The r ight of the

people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

U.S. C ONST

. amend. IV. As in any Fourth Amendment surveillance

case, our analysis begins with Katz v. United States

, 389 U.S. 347

(1967). The Supreme Court in K atz enunciated its two-prong test

for determining whether a warrantless search violated a defendant's

legitimate expectation of privacy: the defendant must have

exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy, and that expectation

must be one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. I d

. at

361 (Harlan, J., concurring); see also Ciraolo

, 476 U.S. at 211

(majority opinion). With regard to the first prong, the government

maintains tha t the Ishmaels did not exhibit a subjective

expectation of privacy because they made no effort to conceal the

heat emanating from the building. In fact, the Ishmaels e ncouraged

emission of the heat by installing an exhaust fan that operated9

continuously. Thus, the government argues, the Ishmaels clearly

failed Katz ' first prong because "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes

to the public, even in his home or office, is not a subject of

Fourth Amendment protection." K atz

, 389 U.S. at 351. The

Ishmaels, in response, contend that the government's argument is

somewhat specious; while the substructure admittedly was emitting

heat, that emission was not a deliberate act. The law of physics,

and not the Ishmaels' failure to contain, controlled the emission

of heat from the substructure. The Ishmaels argue that the

g overnment's "heat waste" analogy therefore is a bad one beca use

one who expects his garbage to remain private can refrain from

leaving it at the curb, whereas one who expects his heat waste to

go undetected can only hope the police is not presently scanning

his property with a thermal imager.

In cases involving very similar facts, other courts have

readily accepted the heat waste analogy in concluding that the

defendants' have failed to satisfy Katz ' first prong. See, e.g.

,

Myers , ___ F.3d at ___; Ford , 34 F.3d at 995; Domitrovich , 852 F.

Supp. at 1472-7 3; P enny-Feeney

, 773 F. Supp. at 225-26. But a

cursory revie w of K atz itself demonstrates that the first prong

probably is not as restrictive as these courts have interpreted it

to be . In K atz

, the government, without a warrant, attached a

recording device to the exterior of a telephone booth that the

defendant used to illegally transmi t gambling information. The

defendant argued that the government's warrantless eavesdropping

was proscribed by the Fourth Amendment, and the Supreme Court3 Riley is further proof that a dweller need not guard against

every possibility of detection in order to satisfy Katz ' first

prong. The defendant in R iley was cultivating marijuana in a

greenhouse that was missing sev eral corrugated roofing panels.

Flying over the greenhouse in a helicopter at 400 feet, the police

observed marijuana through an opening in the roof. The Court found

that the defendant "no doubt intended and expected that his

greenhouse would not be open to public inspection." R iley

, 488

U.S. at 450. But concluding that C iraolo was controlling, the

Court held that the search was nonetheless reasonable.

10 agreed. Though the defendant in K atz did not take every precaution

against electronic eavesdropping, the Court nonetheless concluded

that he had exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy. Katz

,

389 U.S. at 353 (the government's warrantless ea vesdropping

"violated the privacy upon which [the defendant] justifiably relied

while using the telephone booth") (majority opinion). Likewise, in

Ciraolo , the defendant was cultivating marijuana in his backyard,

which was enclosed by a six-foot outer fence and a ten-foot inner

fence. Because the fences obstructed its view from ground level,

the police flew over the defendant's property at 1,000 feet and

observed the marijuana patch. Though it ultimately concluded that

the search was constitutional, the Court initially concluded that

the defendant "[c]learly

. . . ha[d] met the test of manifesting

his own subjective intent and desire to maintain privacy as to his

unlawful agricult ural pursuits." C iraolo

, 476 U.S. at 211; see

also Riley

, 488 U.S. at 449 ("We recognized [in Ciraolo ]

. . . that

the occupant had a subjective expectation of privacy. We held,

however, that such an expectation was not reasonable."). 3

Thus, unless we intend to render Katz ' first prong

m eaningless, we must conclude that the Ishmaels exhibit ed a4 See also 1 W AYNE R. L A F AVE

, S EARCH AND S EIZURE § 2.1(c), at 308-310

(2d ed. 1987) (generally arguing that courts should avo id the

contemplation of unreasonable hypotheticals when applying the first

Katz prong); Da vid H. Steinberg, C onstructing Homes for the

Homeless? Searching for a Fourth Amendment Standard

, 41 D UKE L.J.

1508, 1516-20 (1992).

11 subjective expectation that their hydroponic laboratory would

r emain private. S ee Smith v. Maryland

, 442 U.S. 735, 740 n.5

( 1979) ("[s]ituations can be imagined, of course, in which K atz '

two-pronged inquiry would provide an inadequate ind ex of Fourth

Amendment protection"). 4 Though the Ishmaels did not -- indeed,

could not

-- take every precaution against the detection of the

hydroponic laboratory, the balance o f the evidence demonstrates

that the Ishmaels exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy.

Rohn Is hmael, for example, constructed the laboratory in great

secrecy. In addition, it was built as a basement to a steel

b uilding that was not visible from a public road. We therefore

conclude that the Ishmaels have satisfied Katz ' first prong.

2.

We now must address whether the government's intrusion on the

Ishmaels' subjective expectation of privacy with a thermal imager

is a reasonable one. O liver v. United States

, 466 U.S. 170, 182-83

(1984) ("the correct inquiry is whether the government's intrusion

infringes upon the personal a nd societal values protected by the

Fourth Amendment"). It is at this point in the analysis that the

use of techno logy, and its degree of sophistication, becomes an

issue, because more sophisticated forms of technology increase the

likelihood that their warrantless use will co nstitute an12

unreasonable intrusion. As the Supreme Court once stated,

"surveillance of private property by usi ng highly sophisticated

surveillance equipment not generally available to the public

. . .

might be constitutionally proscri bed absent a warrant." D ow

Chemical , 476 U.S. at 238.

Dow Chemical provides useful guidance for search and seizure

cases involving surveillance technology. There, the Environmental

P rotection Agency, without a warrant, had flown over Dow' s

industrial plant with a precise mapping camera. Dow argued that

the use of the camera was an unconstitutional search. The Supreme

Court disagreed, reasoning that t he government is not foreclosed

from using technology to enhance its surveillances, provided that

that technology does not reveal "intimate details." I d

. at 238.

The Court was satisfied that the camera did not reveal such

"details" because it was not "some unique sensory device that, for

example, could penetrate the walls of buildin gs and record

conversations in Dow's plants, offices, or laboratories, but rather

a conventional, albeit precise, commercial camera commonly used in

m apmaking." I d

. at 238. Similarly, in U nited States v. Knotts

,

460 U.S. 276 (1983), the police surveilled the defendant by means

of an electronic beeper attached to the interior of a five-gallon

chloroform drum. Relying on the beeper's signals, the police

eventually uncovered the drum just outside the residence of one of

the defendants. The defendant who owned the residence insisted

that the warrantless use of the beeper was unconstitutional because

it violated the sanctity of his home. The Supreme Court, however,5 "Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police from

augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birth with

such enhancement as science and technol ogy afforded them in this

case." K notts

, 460 U.S. at 282. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly

held that the fact that a surveillance device allowed for super- or extra-sensory perception is not fatal to a Katz analysis." Ford

, 34 F.3d at 997.

13 held that the surveillance was not an unreasonable search because

"there is no indication that the beeper was used in any way to

reveal information as to the movement of the drum within the

cabin." I d

. at 285; see also Place

, 462 U.S. at 706-07 (specially

trained canine sniffing luggage is not an unconstitutional search

because it is a "limited disclosure" and involves no "embarrassment

and inconvenience"); Smith

, 442 U.S. at 741-46 (pen register, which

discloses only the telephone numbers that have been dialed and not

the content of communications, is not an unconstitutional search);

United States v. Lee

, 274 U.S. 559, 563 (1927) (searchlight that

uncovered contraband from a dista nce was not an unconstitutional

search). Thus, the mere fact that the police have employed

relatively sophisticated forms of technological surveillance does

not render the surveillance unconstitutional. 5 While technology

certainly gives law enforcement a leg up on crime, the Supreme

Court has "never equated police efficiency with

unconstitutio nality." K notts

, 460 U.S. at 284. The crucial

inquiry, as in any search and seizure analysis, is whether the

technology reveals "intimate details." Dow Chemical , 476 U.S. at

238.

A thermal imager, according to the government, is no more

intrusive than the other animate and i nanimate means of14

surveillance that the Supreme Court has concluded does not offend

the Fourth Amendment. That is, like the trained canine in P lace or

the precise mapping camera in Dow Chemical

, a thermal imager is an

acceptable surveillance technique because it does not reveal

intimate details within the structure being scanned. Instead, the

government argues, the device assesses only heat differentials in

objects and therefore poses no threat to the privacy concerns that

the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect. The Ishmaels contend,

however, that a thermal imager is the functional equivalent of an

X-ray machine in that it allows officers to "see" within a

structure what it otherwise cannot see with the naked eye.

Speci fically, they argue, a thermal imager measures heat that is

generated within a structure and, to that extent, constitutes an

unreasonabl e intrusion on one's Fourth Amendment privacy. The

Ishmaels, echoing the district court below, s ee Ishmael

, 843 F.

Supp. at 212, argue that a thermal imager is the type of

"sophisticated technology" that the Court in Dow Chemical warned

law enforcement officials not to use without a warrant.

The Ishmaels overstate the device's capabilities. The device

"does not intrude in any way into the privacy and sanctity of a

home." Myers , ___ F.3d at ___. It "is a passive, non-intrusive

instrument" in that "[i]t does not send any beams or rays into the

area on which it is fixed or in any way penetrate structures within

that area." P enny- Feeney , 773 F. Supp. at 223. As the Eighth

Circuit recently noted, "[t]he detection of the heat waste [is] not

an intrusion into the home; no intimate details of the home [are]6 The Ishmaels also overstate its accessibility, which also is

a significant consideration. S ee Dow Chemical

, 476 U.S. at 238.

As the district court in Deaner stated:

The technology employed is "off the shelf," having been in

general use for fifteen years. The device is utilized by many

businesses for a variety of purposes, including the detection

of roof leaks, steam pipe leaks, crack s in high voltage

transmission lines and overloaded transformers. Several

companies market the product, whi c h is readily available

through purchase, rental or the services of a thermographer.

Deaner , 1992 WL 209966, at *2.

7 We would reach the same conclusion even if we could apply a

more exacting standard of review. Applying the four factors from

United States v. Dunn

, 480 U.S. 294, 300-03 (1987), the steel

building clearly is beyond the Ishmaels' residential curtilage.

The building, for example, stood 200 to 300 yards from the

Ishmaels' mobile home and was not enclosed within a fence that also

surrounded the home. See Ishmael , 843 F. Supp. at 209-10.

15 observed, and there [is] no intrusion upon the privacy of the

individuals within." P inson

, 24 F.3d at 1059. 6 The device, in

other words, poses no greater intrusion on one's privacy than a

precise mapping camera, an electronic beeper, or a pen register.

The manner in which a thermal imager was used in this case is

equally significant in assessing the reasonableness of the

intrusion. When the DEA performed its pre-dawn thermal readings in

this case, the officers never p hysically invaded the Ishmael's

residential or commercial curtilage. S ee Dow Chemical

, 476 U.S. at

237 ("[a]ny actual physical entry by EPA into any enclosed area

would raise significa ntly different questions"). The district

court below characterized the steel building as a "business," see

Ishmael

, 843 F. Supp. at 210, and recogni zing that we can review

the court's factual finding only for clear error, we will not

disturb the court's finding. 7 But the court erred as a matter of

law when it stated the following: "to say that the government could8 In Dunn

, which involved facts nearly identical to those in

Pace

, the Supreme Court accepted for the sake of argument that the

defendant's barn was a business. D unn

, 480 U.S. at 303. The Court

then stated:

the officers never entered the barn, nor did they enter any

other structure on respondent's premises. Once at their

vantage point, they merely stood, outside the curtilage of the

house and in the open fields upon which the barn was

constructed, and peered into the barn's open front. And,

standing as they were in the open fields, the Constitution did

not forbid them to observe the phenylacetone laboratory

located in respondent's barn. This conclusion flows naturally

from our previous decisions.

Id . at 304.

16 intrude up to the very windows of the building on the basis of the

`open fields' doctrine simply because it was outside the curtilage

o f a home, would eviscerate the Fourth Amendment." Id . The

Supreme Court, in fact, has held precisely the opposite. In U nited

States v. Pace

, 955 F.2d 270 (5th Cir. 1992), law enforcement

officers came abreast of the defendant's barn, which stood beyond

the residential c urtilage, and peered inside the barn to observe

the defendant's drug operation. The defendant argued that the barn

qualified as a business and that the barn's surrounding area was

p rotected under a theory analogous to the home curtilage theo ry.

Noting that the Supreme Court effectively rejected this theory in

United States v. Dunn

, 480 U.S. 294, 303-05 (1987), we concluded

tha t "there is no business curtilage surrounding a barn lying

within an open field." P ace

, 955 F.2d at 276. 8 The officers

therefore were entitled to "come as close to the structure as

necessary to look inside without physically entering." Id

.

Similarly, the officers in this case were entitled to observe

the steel building either by air or on foot because the building,17

lik e the barn in P ace

, stood in an open field. And, as we have

already discu ssed, the fact that the officers enhanced their

observations w ith a thermal imager does not require a different

conclusion. The device, when used in an "open field," does not

offend the Fourth Amendment because it is passi ve and nonintrusive. The sanctity of one's home or business is undisturbed.

We therefore conclude that the DEA's warrantless use of a thermal

imager in this case was not an unconstitutional search.

III.

Having concluded that the warrantless use of a thermal imager

was not unconstitutional in this case, we now turn to the question

of whether the device's readings, in conjunction with the remainder

of the evidence the DEA proferred t o the magistrate judge,

established the necessary probable cause to issue the warrant. In

determining whether probable cause exists, "a magistrate judge must

make a practical, com mon-sense decision as to whether, given all

the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair

probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in

a particular place." U nited States v. Byrd , 31 F.3d 1329, 1340

(5th Cir. 1994). Reviewing courts (including district courts)

should afford a magistrate ju dge's decision "great deference."

Illinois v. Gates

, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983); United States v.

McCarty

, 36 F.3d 1349, 1356 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v.

Robertson , 39 F.3d 891, 892 (8th Cir. 1994).

The total ity of the circumstances in this case clearly

indicates a fair probability that the Ishmaels were cultivating9 " Like the district court,

. . . we construe th e

[government's] affidavit in a common-sense manner." McCarty , 36

F.3d at 1356.

wjl\opin\94-40159.opn

jwl 18 marijuana in the steel building's substructure. Rohn Ishmael, for

example, was extremely careful not to reveal the need for the

concrete re-mix. The substructure had been elaborately constructed

with its own electricity supply and w as being fed water from the

nearby pond. The substructure's exhaust fan operated on a

continuous basis. In addition, the Ishmaels phone records

indicated that their phone had been used to call various

horticulture shops, two of which appeared on a law enforcement

computer data bas e. The Ishmaels' electric utility records

demonstrated that the substructure was consum ing an inordinate

amount of power, particularly whe n compared to the mobile home's

power usage. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, expert

thermographers analyzed the two readings from the thermal imager

and concluded that the inordinate amount of heat emanating from the

substructure was consistent with indoor cultivation of marijuana.

Construing this evidence in a "common-sense manner," 9 we conclude

that probable cause existed for the issuance of the warrant. See

Robertson

, 39 F.3d at 893-94 (readings from a thermal imager, when

com b ined with informant's tip and police officer's own

observations, establish probable cause).

IV.wjl\opin\94-40159.opn

jwl 19 For the reasons stated above, the district court's order

granting the Ishmaels' motion to suppress is REVERSED and the case

is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.