// COMPLETE THREAD

Re: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches

3 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child

NODE e5c71f9aRe: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
At 9:27 8/13/96, Peter Trei wrote:

>I vaguely remember another possibly relevant precedent, where a
>judge ruled that a warrant was required before a thermal imager
>could be used to look at a house suspected by the police of
>being a (pot) grow house.

Wrong. No warrant was used and the bust was upheld in court.




-- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.
   Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November.
   Vote Harry Browne for President.
NODE 43b2614cRe: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
Lucky Green wrote:
> 
> At 9:27 8/13/96, Peter Trei wrote:
> 
> >I vaguely remember another possibly relevant precedent, where a
> >judge ruled that a warrant was required before a thermal imager
> >could be used to look at a house suspected by the police of
> >being a (pot) grow house.
> 
> Wrong. No warrant was used and the bust was upheld in court.

Hmm.  A case involving Texas cops hovering above a greenhouse for a
month using a 600mm telescope to peek through a 5-inch gap was thrown
out of court on the grounds that the crop was not in "plain view".
(Wheeler v State, Texas Court of Criminal appeals, 29/9/83).  However,
this was some time ago, so I'm sure the US constitution has been
whittled down a tad more since then.

Gary
--
pub  1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22  Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>
Key fingerprint =  0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D  1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06 
^S
^A^Aoft FAT filesytem is extremely robust, ^Mrarely suffering from^T^T
NODE e7f5f74dRe: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Lucky Green wrote:

> At 9:27 8/13/96, Peter Trei wrote:
> 
> >I vaguely remember another possibly relevant precedent, where a
> >judge ruled that a warrant was required before a thermal imager
> >could be used to look at a house suspected by the police of
> >being a (pot) grow house.
> 
> Wrong. No warrant was used and the bust was upheld in court.

Correct.  No warrant is required to observe that which is freely collected
after eminating from the residence of another and observed off his
property.

Same concept applies to the "sniff" test and ariel views into greenhouses.

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li