Did the flyovers together with the use of intrusive technology constitute an unlawful search and seizure? Explain. R. v. Kuitenen and Ostiguy, 2001 BCSC 677 (British Columbia Supreme Court) Kuitenen and Ostiguy were charged with producing a controlled drug and with posses sion for the purpose of trafficking in a con trolled drug. The RCMP received information from an informant, believed to be reliable, that there was a significant amount of marijuana growing on a property on the Davis Lake Road in British Columbia. The informant explained that the owner of the property was purchasing inordinately large amounts of diesel fuel, which could possibly be evidence of a growing operation. The informant gave the police the licence number of a vehicle, which turned out to belong to Kuitenen The police did not believe they had suffi cient grounds to obtain a search warrant. The police decided to fly over the property, which included Kuitenen's house, using a helicopter equipped with a "FLIR." The device is capable of measuring heat loss from buildings, which in turn may indicate the presence of marijuana production. They viewed videotape of the fly over, and concluded that there appeared to be an underground structure on the property. The police made more flyovers, without a warrant, and said: "If we were up high enough we would not be invading anyone's privacy." However, on one of the videos, they could see a person uri nating. Believing that a marijuana-cultivation operation was on the property, the officer obtained a search warrant. There is no doubt that the evidence obtained as a result of the heli copter surveillance was crucial in securing the general warrant. The police entered the prop erty and found a large marijuana-cultivation operation