Is a Thermal Imaging search needful of a warrant?

[Jim Choate]

Is a visible light search needful of a warrant? If so then why is the
frequency of the radiation an issue?

    ____________________________________________________________________

           Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a
           smaller group must first understand it.

                                           "Stranger Suns"
                                           George Zebrowski

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------


On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 George at Orwellian.Org wrote:

> The U.S. Supreme Court will be deciding soon.
> 
> Previously:
> 
> ----
> 
> Is it okay for the government to look at your property while walking by and
> if the officer spots marijuana plants growing to get a search warrant?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> *   "The Right To Privacy", ISBN 0-679-74434-7, 1997
> *   By Attorneys Ellen Alderman and [The] Caroline Kennedy
> *
> *   ...then the Supreme Court ruled that if the yard was big enough that "An
> *   individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted
> *   out of doors in fields," the Court wrote, "except in the area immediately
> *   surrounding the home."
> *
> *   ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a barn sixty yards from a farmhouse
> *   was too far away from a house to expect privacy.
> *
> *   ...then the Supreme Court ruled that aerial surveillance did not constitute
> *   a Fourth Amendment search.
> *
> *   ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a "precision aerial mapping camera"
> *   that was able to capture objects as small as one-half inch in diameter did
> *   not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.
> 
> ...then courts ruled that infrared surveillance of homes was permissible.
> 
> What is this?
> 
> *   Subject:      Re: Law Enforcement Aviation
> *   From:         aufsj at imap2.asu.edu
> *   Date:         1996/12/27
> *   Newsgroups:   rec.aviation.military
> *
> *   What interests me is how new technologies will be interpreted. I recently
> *   inquired at the local Law School about the courts views towards the use
> *   of impulse radar, and they said "Impulse what the heck?"
> *
> *   Basically it is a radar that "sees through" things (like, say, your
> *   house).
> *
> *   Their capabilities vary widely, but the feds are already using
> *   them and I know that Hughes corp. is designing a low-cost set up
> *   specifically for major police departments.
> *
> *   They are driving towards a unit that can be mounted on a police helicopter.
> *
> *   Will the police need a warrant? Who knows. Since they are allowed
> *   to do airborne infra-red analysis of your house, why not an take an
> *   airborne "x-ray" equivalent?
> *
> *   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> *   Steven J Forsberg   at  aufsj at imap2.asu.edu              Wizard 87-01
> 
> MSNBC showed a police car mounted device that scans through
> our clothes [for gun metal] as they drive around.
> 
> ----
> 
> Here's the URL to the current story, which
> made it onto Rather Evening News this evening.
> 
> http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,272897-412,00.shtml
>