View Single Post
Old January 24, 2013, 05:22 PM   #14
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 8,388
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.
Which is why we don't have any body scanners at airports or . . . But we do!

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. 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.
KyJim is offline  
Page generated in 0.03588 seconds with 7 queries