Which of the following could NOT be seized without implicating a right to privacy?

The correct assertion is that information gathered with a thermal imager could not be seized without implicating a right to privacy. This is grounded in the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in cases concerning the use of technology to gather information.

The use of a thermal imager typically allows law enforcement to detect heat patterns from within a home or other private spaces, which reveals intimate details about the activities occurring inside. The Supreme Court has ruled that such intrusions into the privacy of one’s home constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. The thermal imager enhances the traditional surveillance capabilities of law enforcement and invades a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

In contrast, the other options involve activities or observations that do not generally implicate a right to privacy. For example, the sound of a person’s voice in public is something that can be heard by anyone and is not protected by privacy rights. Similarly, the location of a car parked in a driveway may be less protected than that of private spaces where individuals can expect privacy, depending on the specific circumstances and jurisdictions. Lastly, odors emanating from a car are detectable by anyone nearby and do not typically carry an expectation of privacy. Thus, these elements do not rise to the level of a privacy