|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 23, 2013, 09:20 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
NYPD...More Shenanigans...
Link
It seems their recent handslapping over their "Stop and Frisk" program hasn't deterred them from further 4th amendment side stepping. It's worrying that measures like this are not stopped before they go ahead and will likely only be stopped(if the technology goes live) after a number of people have had their rights violated. Particularly in light of similar practices already being ruled a 4th violation. Kyllo v US |
January 23, 2013, 09:32 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
I would think this would clearly run afoul of the 4th Amendment, since it relies on a visual depiction using information that's outside the scope of human senses. It's one thing to use binoculars or a parabolic microphone to extend human vision/hearing, but I doubt that a warrantless search using thermal imaging technology will pass muster with the courts.
|
January 23, 2013, 09:57 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
I believe the Supreme Court has already ruled that such is not permissible.
|
January 23, 2013, 10:01 PM | #4 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
But ... but ... This doesn't use infra-red tech! This device uses radiation from the TeraHertz region! The Supremes only opined in the Infra Red spectrum... ... ...
Yeah! That's the ticket. Stick with that argument, fellas. |
January 23, 2013, 10:07 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
More importantly, the Court in Kyllo relied heavily on the heightened privacy interest in one's residence. This would be out on the public street. Not saying I think it is okay, just a point of distinction.
|
January 23, 2013, 10:09 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Al, that's exactly what concerns me. That they likely know they're treading on thin ice and would rather trample people's rights until told not too(not to mention waste tax payers dollars).
|
January 23, 2013, 10:27 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
KyJim, that's definitely a concern if this technology goes forward. Hopefully the courts will see fit to not think the distinction is enough to uphold the use of the technology.
|
January 23, 2013, 10:31 PM | #8 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I understand that distinction, KyJim.
However, this is still a suspicion-less search and slaps the Terry decision all to hell. |
January 23, 2013, 10:32 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
The "in public" versus "inside your own home" aspect does concern me, though. EDIT - got my posters confused. I was responding to Al's point that the courts haven't specifically addressed terahertz imaging yet. |
|
January 23, 2013, 11:34 PM | #10 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
That's OK, Scott. I was being facetious anyway.
|
January 23, 2013, 11:38 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Sadly, I couldn't tell - I thought the bolded part of your post was something you'd found in the "comments" section of a news article on the subject - it wouldn't have been out of place!
|
January 24, 2013, 12:09 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
With His Dishonor in charge, and backed by His Disgrace,the Duke of New York State, this will proceed full speed ahead.
Having said that, I certainly hope the courts slap this down with penalties, fast. |
January 24, 2013, 12:17 AM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Link to Kyllo: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...3/27/case.html
Kyllo was about a search of a home, but the core of the ruling was about where one might have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And it would appear (to me), based on the language from the Kyllo decision, that one's pocket (or underwear) is likely to be as protected against warrantless search as one's living room. Quote:
|
|
January 24, 2013, 05:22 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
As an aside, there was finally enough pressure on TSA so that they are getting rid of the backscatter body scanners in favor of technology that gives only a more "cartoon-like" image of the human body and, presumably, any contraband. http://www.policymic.com/articles/23...ancer-concerns. What if these machines out on the streets also only provide "cartoon-like" images? Does this lessen the intrusion and justify use of the technology on public streets? This is all very Orwellian to me. |
|
January 26, 2013, 11:10 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 864
|
The situation at the airport is a little different that someone walking down the street.
When I buy an airline ticket, I have consented to a search of my person and my luggage. In fact, I will not fly unless I am certain that every other passenger has also consented to an equivalent search. Honestly, I don't know where in the ticket-buying process I have consented. It is probably in the fine print somewhere. |
|
|