larry50 wrote:I don't think the SCOTUS has issued a blanket ruling outlawing thermal imaging. I am no expert in this area, but the restrictions imposed are in line with other search and seizure cases which are very fact intenstive and generally require probable cause and a search warrant, or exigent circumstances excusing a search warrant. Either way, I don't see any constitutional problem with using drones for surveillance when warranted.
The Dormer matter is destined to end badly, since I don't see him just giving up.
Larry, the blanket rule regarding the use of technology is that technology that reveals something that the human senses cannot detect is forbidden.
While not foursquare because it did not use drones, but on point because it used thermal technology, it was decided that thermal technology could not be used for surveillance by SCOTUS. The case cite may come to mind later, but you should be able to find it fairly easily.
larry50 wrote:
normh wrote:
Another Brick wrote:
Funny how a fence around the country is a good idea to the right wingers... If it keeps the Mexicans out.I intensely disagree with a fence around the country. It is a foolish idea.
Well, the right wing wants a fence on the southern border to keep the brown people out. No one's talking about a fence on the Canadian border to keep those pesky white illegal immigrants out.
Tell me and tell me true. What is the percentage of those pesky white illegal aliens from Canada in comparison to those pesky little brown illegal aliens from Mexico?
Now how about taking the racism elsewhere.
Another Brick wrote:
Back in my Lakewood youth, it was said that thehelecopters had night vision goggles. No one made a fuss about it except for us dope heads looking for a hideout to smoke some weed.
What do night vision goggles do? They amplifiy the available light, don't they. Light that you already see, they do not frequency shift that light, and they do not detect heat.
As a teenager in LV, when the police put their first helicopter up. That birdy flew for about 15 minutes before someone shot it out of the air.
Another Brick wrote:
Technology that is " beyond the scope of human senses" is used all the time. Ever heard of binoculars, breathalyzers and police dogs.
But please, keep grasping for straws. This is quite entertaining.
All those things that you mentioned, excluding dogs, use available human senses. I will not argue the law with the uninformed.
Dogs are another matter. Either this term, SCOTUS will hear, or last term the heard a matter of a police dog being walked up to the front door of a residence to signal for probable cause to obtain a warrant. Not sure about the outcome as I have not followed up on it. Indications were that this was going to be ruled unconstitutional.
Regarding dogs at traffic stops, you have exigent circumstances because of the mobility of the vehicle. If the police have a vehicle in custody, outside of an inventory search, the police need a warrant to use a dog or search for evidence not found in the inventory search.
Breathalyzers are inherently unconstitutional. However the terms of a drivers license are such that your license may be revoked if you refuse a breathalyzer. This moves refusal from a criminal to a civil arena. Ditto with blood tests. If a person refuses a blood test, the police, or other authorities, must obtain a warrant.
It may come about that the use of a drone in this situation will be ruled an exigent circumstance, but I do not see it reaching that point.
Help Desk