|
|
BUSTED IN MO
Antiprohibitionist
Joined: 09 Aug 2008
Posts: 51
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
socrateez
Stoned Philosopher
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1225
Location: I'm the person to your right.
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Quote: | | The Voluntary Relinquishment Rationale The abandoned waste analogy was equally unconvincing to the Cusumano court. The relinquishment of control over heat emissions is hardly voluntary as it is with trash. The loss of heat is governed by the laws of physics and is not an area where people usually seek control to guard their privacy. In addition, while people expect that their trash may be invaded by scavengers, they hardly expect their homes to be scanned with thermal imagers. |
I particularly like this argument against thermal invasion.
These are case references from the articles endnotes. Quite a range of court opinion.
11. 773F.Supp. 220, (D. Hawaii 1991), aff'd on other grounds, 984 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir. 1993). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to address the use of FLIR because it felt police had sufficient probable cause for the search independent of FLIR readings.
20. 476 U.S. 207 (1986). The defendant shielded his backyard marijuana plants with two high fences. Police use of an airplane to see the plants from 1,000 feet overhead was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.
21. 448 U.S. 445 (1989). The defendant grew marijuana in a greenhouse located 10 to 20 feet behind his home. The home and greenhouse were surrounded by barbed wire posted with a Do Not Enter sign. Police used a helicopter flying at 400 feet to look through holes in the roof to see the elicopter flying at 400 feet to look through holes in the roof to see the marijuana. The Court held that was not a Fourth Amendment search.marijuana. The Court held that was not a Fourth Amen24. United States v. Robinson, 62 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 1995), at 1329. "...the record does not indicate that he took any action to prevent the resulting heat from being emitted into the atmosphere above his house... Robinson's inaction regarding the heat generated from his marijuana cultivation demonstrates his lack of concern for it. Thus we conclude that Robinson has not established a subjective expectation of privacy in this heat emitted from his home." (Emphasis the court's).25. 48 F.3d at 857. "The device, when used in an open field, does not offend the Fourth Amendment because it is passive and non-intrusive. The sanctity of one's home or business is undisturbed."33. State v. Young, 867 P.2d 593 (Wash. 1994) (The use of the thermal imager is a violation of both the Washington state and the federal constitutions.); State v. Siegal, 934 P.2d 176 (Mont. 1997) (Use of a thermal imager in a law enforcement context is a search under the Montana Constitution.). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group |
|
|
|
