I imagine he's going to claim this is a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. SCOTUS has held that 4A limits use of technology not in widespread use by the public. So, a cop walking by on your street who wears glasses and sees what appears to be a dead body through your front window, ok; extremely expensive thermal imagers to see that the roof over your third bedroom is way hotter than the rest of the house and you might be growing pot, no. But IMO he's going to have a hard time making that case because that's for warrantless, pre probable cause searches. If police have PC and a warrant, they can use pretty sophisticated tools looking for evidence. Plus in this case they'll probably claim officer safety as well, since he chased them off with guns.
Not so much anymore. Ten years ago $15k and up.
Today <$1200.
This SCOTUS decision does not address types of technology as such, merely how common it is. As certain types of tech get cheaper, the rationale for why they can't be used loses steam.
seems this person was already surrounded and already about to be arrested. This article does not convey any information. This would be akin to just asking a helicopter where the subject was.