In a message dated 11/01/1999 6:45:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << ================================ Tuesday November 2, 1999 ================================ -----Original Message----- From: State and Local Freedom of Information Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jim Warren Sent: 1999. listopad 31 15:56 To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Thermal Imaging In-Home Surveillance OK Without Warrants At 1:24 AM -0700 10/31/99, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny King) wrote: >WESTERN FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES >POLICE MAY CONDUCT THERMAL IMAGING SURVEILLANCE >ON PRIVATE HOMES WITHOUT WARRANT > >Court Reverses: No Warrant Needed for Thermal Imaging > >The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed last week (9/10) by deciding that >police need not obtain a warrant before turning thermal imaging technology >on private homes. The new ruling delighted law enforcement, which uses the >technology to look for indoor marijuana-grow operations or drug labs by >detecting excess heat coming from within a residence. > >The original ruling, in August, 1998, said that the technology was >intrusive enough to necessitate a warrant. Even as the government's motion >for re-hearing was pending, however, one of the three panel judges retired, >and the new judge, Melvin Brunetti, joined Judge Michael Hawkins, the lone >dissenter in the first opinion, to overturn. > >Judge John Noonan, dissenting to the new ruling, likened the use of thermal >imaging to a high-powered telescope looking into a home, an activity which >would require a warrant. But Judge Michael Hawkins, who wrote the new >majority opinion said that the technology "intrude(s) into nothing." > >Military analyst Joseph Miranda, however, told The Week Online that the >technology is more invasive than the majority opinion lets on. > >"Thermal imaging technology involves infrared detectors which basically >allow people to see through walls. It can determine changes in heat levels >within a house. While the police might be using this technology to find >marijuana grow lights, they can also determine which rooms have people in >them and even what you are doing in your bedroom. In fact, the technology >is getting to the stage that with the help of computer-enhancement, >authorities could use the technology to get a pretty accurate picture of >very personal activities." > > > From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blaine-Laura Katz) > Subject: Court Reverses: No Warrant Needed for Thermal Imaging > Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:40:29 -0400 > > >======================================================== > >The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeal covers most of the Western U.S. >Cases are usually decided by a 3 judge panel. The first time this case was >heard, two of the three judges voted that thermal imaging surveillance was >so intrusive of privacy that it required a warrant. One judge ruled that >it needed no warrant. One of the judges that ruled it needad a warrant >retired, and the judge who took his place voted oppositely when the case >was granted a rehearing at the government's (police's) request. It seem >unlikely that this ruling will stand, but it will probably be the law of >the land for the next year or so, until it is overturned. The next likely >step will be a rehearing before the court "en banc", when all of the 23 or >so judges who sit on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal will hear and decide >the case together. The next, and last step, is an appeal to the U.S. >Supreme Court. > >-Johnny >>
'__ ___ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ __ / _| o \ V / \| | __| | | / _| \_ \ '_/\ /| \\ | _|| V V \_ \ |__/_| .// |_|\_|___|\_n_/|__/ http://mprofaca.cro.net/mainmenu.html ================================ Tuesday November 2, 1999 ================================ -----Original Message----- From: State and Local Freedom of Information Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jim Warren Sent: 1999. listopad 31 15:56 To: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Thermal Imaging In-Home Surveillance OK Without Warrants At 1:24 AM -0700 10/31/99, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnny King) wrote: >WESTERN FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES >POLICE MAY CONDUCT THERMAL IMAGING SURVEILLANCE >ON PRIVATE HOMES WITHOUT WARRANT > >Court Reverses: No Warrant Needed for Thermal Imaging > >The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed last week (9/10) by deciding that >police need not obtain a warrant before turning thermal imaging technology >on private homes. The new ruling delighted law enforcement, which uses the >technology to look for indoor marijuana-grow operations or drug labs by >detecting excess heat coming from within a residence. > >The original ruling, in August, 1998, said that the technology was >intrusive enough to necessitate a warrant. Even as the government's motion >for re-hearing was pending, however, one of the three panel judges retired, >and the new judge, Melvin Brunetti, joined Judge Michael Hawkins, the lone >dissenter in the first opinion, to overturn. > >Judge John Noonan, dissenting to the new ruling, likened the use of thermal >imaging to a high-powered telescope looking into a home, an activity which >would require a warrant. But Judge Michael Hawkins, who wrote the new >majority opinion said that the technology "intrude(s) into nothing." > >Military analyst Joseph Miranda, however, told The Week Online that the >technology is more invasive than the majority opinion lets on. > >"Thermal imaging technology involves infrared detectors which basically >allow people to see through walls. It can determine changes in heat levels >within a house. While the police might be using this technology to find >marijuana grow lights, they can also determine which rooms have people in >them and even what you are doing in your bedroom. In fact, the technology >is getting to the stage that with the help of computer-enhancement, >authorities could use the technology to get a pretty accurate picture of >very personal activities." > > > From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blaine-Laura Katz) > Subject: Court Reverses: No Warrant Needed for Thermal Imaging > Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 04:40:29 -0400 > > >======================================================== > >The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeal covers most of the Western U.S. >Cases are usually decided by a 3 judge panel. The first time this case was >heard, two of the three judges voted that thermal imaging surveillance was >so intrusive of privacy that it required a warrant. One judge ruled that >it needed no warrant. One of the judges that ruled it needad a warrant >retired, and the judge who took his place voted oppositely when the case >was granted a rehearing at the government's (police's) request. It seem >unlikely that this ruling will stand, but it will probably be the law of >the land for the next year or so, until it is overturned. The next likely >step will be a rehearing before the court "en banc", when all of the 23 or >so judges who sit on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal will hear and decide >the case together. The next, and last step, is an appeal to the U.S. >Supreme Court. > >-Johnny ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Looking for the latest consumer electronic gadgets or computer equipment? eBay has thousands of audio equipment, computer games & accessories. You never know what you might find at eBay! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1142 '__ ___ _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _ __ / _| o \ V / \| | __| | | / _| \_ \ '_/\ /| \\ | _|| V V \_ \ |__/_| .// |_|\_|___|\_n_/|__/ http://mprofaca.cronet.com/latest.html -- Talk to your group with your own voice! -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=spynews&m=1
