What is the impact of the FLIR device on privacy rights?

Several cases were brought to my attention on the subject of the FLIR device. In Regina v. Kuitenen, [2001] B.C.J. No. 1292, Oppal J. (as he then was), sitting as a court of first instance, held that a police fly-over of a private residence with a FLIR device violated the resident's right to privacy. The case appears to be decided primarily on the basis that the "fly-over" was so low that the police could see someone urinating on the property. Oppal J.'s comments about the FLIR were somewhat cryptic; he referred to it as "intrusive technology", but no evidence was submitted about the way it worked. Based upon what I have heard in this voir dire, I must respectfully disagree with his conclusion.