2001-06-12 15:45:08+02 by Dan Lyke 2 comments
"Where, as here, the government uses a device that is not in general public use to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant," Scalia wrote.
[ related topics: Politics Privacy ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment made: 2002-02-21 06:31:48+01 by: Larry Burton
Scalia wrote that? I agree with him but, sheesh, you think you know someone.
#Comment made: 2002-02-21 06:31:49+01 by: meuon
Hmm... Is growing pot inside a house a crime to warrant such measures? I think if they are using high gain heat detectors to measure bodies inside a house before the SWAT team enters in a hostage situation, this is a possibly effective use of technology. "Suspicious Pattern of Hot Spots" OK, maybe they saw "grow lights", I'm thinking that the outside wall/windows of the building need some heat tape applied that spells out something appropriate.
I am fearful of the things that I consider normal to my life that would be 'suspicious patterns' to anyone looking hard enough.
Bottom line: Search Warrant should be required.
We will not edit your comments. However, we may delete your comments, or cause them to be hidden behind another link, if we feel they detract from the conversation. Commercial plugs are fine, if they are relevant to the conversation, and if you don't try to pretend to be a consumer. Annoying endorsements will be deleted if you're lucky, if you're not a whole bunch of people smarter and more articulate than you will ridicule you, and we will leave such ridicule in place.
Flutterby™ is a trademark claimed by
Dan Lyke for the web publications at www.flutterby.com and www.flutterby.net.