CDR: Re: police IR searches to Supremes

[Steve Furlong]

"A. Melon" wrote:
> 
>  Supreme Court to hear thermal peeking case
>  By MICHAEL KIRKLAND

<<snip most of the article>>

I don't see how any rational mind could see this type of search as
allowed under the US 4th Amendment. Too bad no jurist has asked my
opinion.

But one line in the article pissed me off:

>  A
>  subsequent search discovered an indoor marijuana growing operation, firearms
>  and drug paraphernalia, again according to court records.
> 
>   Kyllo was indicted on one count of growing marijuana, 

Since Kyllo wasn't indicted on firearms charges, we must assume that the
firearms were legal. Why, then, were they mentioned? Why didn't Kirkland
also mention that a search found eating utensils and blue jeans? The
American establishment press's bias as regards firearms is a constant
irritant.

Snarlingly,
SRF

-- 
Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere     Have GNU, will travel
   518-374-4720     sfurlong at acmenet.net