Lucky Green wrote:
At 9:27 8/13/96, Peter Trei wrote:
I vaguely remember another possibly relevant precedent, where a judge ruled that a warrant was required before a thermal imager could be used to look at a house suspected by the police of being a (pot) grow house.
Wrong. No warrant was used and the bust was upheld in court.
Hmm. A case involving Texas cops hovering above a greenhouse for a month using a 600mm telescope to peek through a 5-inch gap was thrown out of court on the grounds that the crop was not in "plain view". (Wheeler v State, Texas Court of Criminal appeals, 29/9/83). However, this was some time ago, so I'm sure the US constitution has been whittled down a tad more since then. Gary -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06 ^S ^A^Aoft FAT filesytem is extremely robust, ^Mrarely suffering from^T^T