Is a Thermal Imaging search needful of a warrant?
The U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding soon. Previously: ---- Is it okay for the government to look at your property while walking by and if the officer spots marijuana plants growing to get a search warrant? Of course it is. * "The Right To Privacy", ISBN 0-679-74434-7, 1997 * By Attorneys Ellen Alderman and [The] Caroline Kennedy * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that if the yard was big enough that "An * individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted * out of doors in fields," the Court wrote, "except in the area immediately * surrounding the home." * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a barn sixty yards from a farmhouse * was too far away from a house to expect privacy. * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that aerial surveillance did not constitute * a Fourth Amendment search. * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a "precision aerial mapping camera" * that was able to capture objects as small as one-half inch in diameter did * not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. ...then courts ruled that infrared surveillance of homes was permissible. What is this? * Subject: Re: Law Enforcement Aviation * From: aufsj@imap2.asu.edu * Date: 1996/12/27 * Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military * * What interests me is how new technologies will be interpreted. I recently * inquired at the local Law School about the courts views towards the use * of impulse radar, and they said "Impulse what the heck?" * * Basically it is a radar that "sees through" things (like, say, your * house). * * Their capabilities vary widely, but the feds are already using * them and I know that Hughes corp. is designing a low-cost set up * specifically for major police departments. * * They are driving towards a unit that can be mounted on a police helicopter. * * Will the police need a warrant? Who knows. Since they are allowed * to do airborne infra-red analysis of your house, why not an take an * airborne "x-ray" equivalent? * * --------------------------------------------------------------------- * Steven J Forsberg at aufsj@imap2.asu.edu Wizard 87-01 MSNBC showed a police car mounted device that scans through our clothes [for gun metal] as they drive around. ---- Here's the URL to the current story, which made it onto Rather Evening News this evening. http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,272897-412,00.shtml
Is a visible light search needful of a warrant? If so then why is the frequency of the radiation an issue? ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 George@Orwellian.Org wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding soon.
Previously:
----
Is it okay for the government to look at your property while walking by and if the officer spots marijuana plants growing to get a search warrant?
Of course it is.
* "The Right To Privacy", ISBN 0-679-74434-7, 1997 * By Attorneys Ellen Alderman and [The] Caroline Kennedy * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that if the yard was big enough that "An * individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted * out of doors in fields," the Court wrote, "except in the area immediately * surrounding the home." * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a barn sixty yards from a farmhouse * was too far away from a house to expect privacy. * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that aerial surveillance did not constitute * a Fourth Amendment search. * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a "precision aerial mapping camera" * that was able to capture objects as small as one-half inch in diameter did * not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.
...then courts ruled that infrared surveillance of homes was permissible.
What is this?
* Subject: Re: Law Enforcement Aviation * From: aufsj@imap2.asu.edu * Date: 1996/12/27 * Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military * * What interests me is how new technologies will be interpreted. I recently * inquired at the local Law School about the courts views towards the use * of impulse radar, and they said "Impulse what the heck?" * * Basically it is a radar that "sees through" things (like, say, your * house). * * Their capabilities vary widely, but the feds are already using * them and I know that Hughes corp. is designing a low-cost set up * specifically for major police departments. * * They are driving towards a unit that can be mounted on a police helicopter. * * Will the police need a warrant? Who knows. Since they are allowed * to do airborne infra-red analysis of your house, why not an take an * airborne "x-ray" equivalent? * * --------------------------------------------------------------------- * Steven J Forsberg at aufsj@imap2.asu.edu Wizard 87-01
MSNBC showed a police car mounted device that scans through our clothes [for gun metal] as they drive around.
----
Here's the URL to the current story, which made it onto Rather Evening News this evening.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Is a visible light search needful of a warrant? If so then why is the frequency of the radiation an issue?
The capacity of most humans to see in visible light wavelengths is well-documented, and this capacity forms part of our expectation of what is and is not private. People erect privacy fences *BECAUSE* those fences cannot be seen through in the visible-light spectrum. In so doing, they express an intent for the stuff behind those fences to be private. *sigh.* I suppose it would freak their cookies, and might even prompt a search-warrant, if someone installed steel plates in his walls so that the impulse-radar was baffled. Bear
At 06:29 PM 2/19/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
Is a visible light search needful of a warrant? If so then why is the frequency of the radiation an issue?
Because the law has a notion of 'reasonable expectation'. ....... "What company did you say you were from, Mr. Hewlett?" ---Walt Disney to Bill Hewlett eetimes 22.01.01 p 32
see the Supreme Court oral arguments on this today... --Declan On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:19:14PM -0800, David Honig wrote:
At 06:29 PM 2/19/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
Is a visible light search needful of a warrant? If so then why is the frequency of the radiation an issue?
Because the law has a notion of 'reasonable expectation'.
....... "What company did you say you were from, Mr. Hewlett?" ---Walt Disney to Bill Hewlett eetimes 22.01.01 p 32
participants (5)
-
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Georgeï¼ Orwellian.Org -
Jim Choate -
Ray Dillinger