So what about the 4th Amendment now? These have been used for 2 years...

a reply to: Tardacus

Then why can't they just get a warrant if its reasonable? If they have a good reason, it should not be difficult to obtain a proper warrant for this sort of thing.

originally posted by: thesmokingman

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: thesmokingman

The 4th amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure. This just enables them to see in a residence to see if a suspect could be inside. Just like it does not violate your 4th amendment rights if they walk up and peer inside your windows. Besides, it just detects movement by radar, they are not actually able to SEE what you are doing.

Looking through your walls to see if you are in is a "search".

And besides, they might not be able to see exactly what you are doing now. But what about in 5 years, when the technology is refined? Or 10 years.



Never mind the fact that this has been happening for 2 years already without barely a whisper.

Nothing to see here, take your medication, go back to sleep.

It most certainly is not a "search". I dare you to prove me wrong....

You are confusing the legal definition of search vs the dictionary definition of search.

In every argument you make is cases of officers searching for something. Perhaps we should once again determine that the law should also accept the dictionary definition of the word.

It would be like shooting a cop and then arguing that you were target practicing.

originally posted by: 3n19m470
Yes, its a "search". And while they may be able to peer into wondows or open doors, I, as a citizen, have the ability and the right to close and lock my doors, and put curtains, or blinds over my windows. In fact, I can duct tape black plastic over my windows, or staple blankets, or any other method to effectively seal all light from entering or exiting my windows if I so choose.

Question... Is there a way to block this intrusion? Or better yet, a way to block it without them being able to know I'm blocking it? There are radar jammers, right?

They could alsp use this to know when your house is empty so they can go inside to plant bugs, plant drugs, plant child porn, or just wait inside to ambush you when you come home. They could just send a drone equipped with one of these devices to fly over your home, way up in the atmosphere, so watching for suspicious vehicles wont help, or setting up surveillance cameras to watch for the same...

You do realize that they cannot actually see you right? Its radar. It just detects movement within the home.

originally posted by: 3n19m470
Yes, its a "search". And while they may be able to peer into wondows or open doors, I, as a citizen, have the ability and the right to close and lock my doors, and put curtains, or blinds over my windows. In fact, I can duct tape black plastic over my windows, or staple blankets, or any other method to effectively seal all light from entering or exiting my windows if I so choose.

Question... Is there a way to block this intrusion? Or better yet, a way to block it without them being able to know I'm blocking it? There are radar jammers, right?

They could alsp use this to know when your house is empty so they can go inside to plant bugs, plant drugs, plant child porn, or just wait inside to ambush you when you come home. They could just send a drone equipped with one of these devices to fly over your home, way up in the atmosphere, so watching for suspicious vehicles wont help, or setting up surveillance cameras to watch for the same...

Someone has suggested using lead based paint to block intrusion, not sure if it would work but at least superman could not see what's goin on.

It is a "search", it is illegal, and if taken to the Supreme Court, they would rule so.

originally posted by: thesmokingman
It most certainly is not a "search". I dare you to prove me wrong....

As the source article noted

The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant" which

which would be the standard reached under Kyloo v. United States which reads in part:


KYLLO v. UNITED STATES
Docket No.
99-8508
Petitioner
Kyllo
Respondent
United States
Decided By
Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)
Opinion
533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Argued
Tuesday, February 20, 2001
Decided
Monday, June 11, 2001
Advocates
Michael R. Dreeben
(Department of Justice, argued the cause for the United States)
Kenneth Lerner
(Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Tags Criminal Procedure Search and Seizure
Term:

2000-2009
2000

Location: Kyllo's Home
Facts of the Case

A Department of the Interior agent, suspicious that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana, used a thermal-imaging device to scan his triplex. The imaging was to be used to determine if the amount of heat emanating from the home was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. Subsequently, the imaging revealed that relatively hot areas existed, compared to the rest of the home. Based on informants, utility bills, and the thermal imaging, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home. The search unveiled growing marijuana. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. Ultimately affirming, the Court of Appeals held that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home, and even if he had, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the imager "did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life," only "amorphous 'hot spots' on the roof and exterior wall."
Question

Does the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect relative amounts of heat emanating from a private home constitute an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
*****
Decision: 5 votes for Kyllo, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the "observations were made with a fairly primitive thermal imager that gathered data exposed on the outside of [Kyllo's] home but did not invade any constitutionally protected interest in privacy," and were, thus, "information in the public domain."


... stare decisis ... in very few circumstances would evidence, citation, arrest, conviction, etc that stem from this "search" be upheld ... even the case the source article mentions is vague and deceitful ... I would need to get a hold of court documents to have a better idea of the matter ... but in general, there is no doubt this would not stand up to the Supreme Court (well, actually, I have lost a lot of faith in them as well).

This topic is somewhat stupid.

This device can only tell them if someone is in the house or room, and not very effectively. They don't even need a device for that, they can just wait outside until you come out. LOL

This device is only good for SWAT teams about to secretly raid a house, and they want to know if anyone is in a room before entering. Which, quite frankly, takes too much time, and its easier to just bust the door down and flashbang the place, and always assume someone is in the next room.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
This topic is somewhat stupid.

If you say so, but I would consider it an important one that needs to be put out for public debate.

This device can only tell them if someone is in the house or room, and not very effectively. They don't even need a device for that, they can just wait outside until you come out. LOL

It can tell a lot more than just that. Only is a strong word to use and "tells" me you are perceiving what information the device might reveal too narrowly.
Some other information that might be extrapolated (especially in combination with other tools and techniques) are:

• How many people are in a home or particular room which may reveal relationships, frequency of visitors, social tendencies.
  
• The room(s) most frequented which may reveal habits and patterns.
  
• How often, and when, one typically goes to the kitchen, bathroom, or a particular room (e.g. where one is known to hold weapons or something) which may provide information on certain habits, patterns or best times to conduct a raid.
  
• If people are being intimate via proximity with another person which may reveal relationships and habits and patterns.
  
• If a person does anything prior to answering the door. For instance, police may visit to "ask questions of a crime in the neighborhood" to gage what a person does prior to answering the door when they know it is the police (do they move straight toward the door, do they move around or to another room first indicating they might be scrummaging to hide things, etc) which will reveal habits and patterns.
  
• When one typically is at rest/asleep which will reveal habits and patterns.
  
• How often one is home versus not which will reveal habits, patterns, and social tendencies.
  

Just to name a few.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
This topic is somewhat stupid.

This device can only tell them if someone is in the house or room, and not very effectively. They don't even need a device for that, they can just wait outside until you come out. LOL

This device is only good for SWAT teams about to secretly raid a house, and they want to know if anyone is in a room before entering. Which, quite frankly, takes too much time, and its easier to just bust the door down and flashbang the place, and always assume someone is in the next room.

If you dont think your God given(natural for the athiests) human rights matter then I would argue it is you that is stupid.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Thank you for your input into this thread. I have found it quite helpful.
Not just because you are agreeing with me, but because you have backed it up with case law.
Thanks.