Privacy

[BrainyBeauty]

U.S. Supreme Court hears marijuana case

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court justices joined a spirited debate Tuesday over whether law enforcement officials violated an Oregon man's constitutional rights when they used a heat-sensing device to find he was growing marijuana in his home.
At issue is whether narcotics agents violated a constitutional ban on unreasonable searches when they trained a thermal imaging device on Danny Lee Kyllo's house -- without a search warrant.

Read the whole article here:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/20/scotus.heatdetector.01.ap/index.html

Our privacy is being eroded every time we turn around. What do you all think of this?

I knew that law enforcement had the capability to listen in on your conversations inside your home from as far away as a mile (but I always thought they had to have a warrant to be allowed to use it)

Now this thermal imaging device seems to really be pushing the envelope. Is it an effective tool for the authorities or is it an illegal search? And will they use it for crime prevention or as a way to get their jollies as they spy on people having sex?

Is this Big Brother's way of keeping up with the criminals in this technological age? Or are our basic freedoms being undermined because science has found a way around the law? This seems terribly wrong to me. (Regardless of this particular guy's crime)

 

[Todd]

BrainyBeauty,

I hope your wearing your teflon. Cause I know a post on this topic will get you flamed all the way to hades and back again. beleive me I know I posted a topic identical to it a month or so ago, and I was ripped a new bung hole by half the people on here for being an extremesist, and that I only read right wing sonspiracy theory sites.

Good luck BrainyBeauty in getting a productive thread on this topic. I really hope because you started it we will get some intelligent thoughts on the issue of privaacy at hand.

 

[Budman]

Brainy Beauty: I'm a law and order advocate. You do the crime, you do the time. Many here know about my fiance who is in prison now for committing a non violent crime. BUT, having said that, this smacks of a bit too much of "big brother" to me. What's next??????? Cameras in the bedroom? Busting husband and wife for having oral sex? Where does it end? From what i understand of the article, he was not under suspicion or investigation. To me, using the imaging device was a violation of that person's rights.
Flame away people. Won't change my opinion tho.

 

[Todd]

Thank you Budman I am glad someone sees what is going on.

 

[Gaucho]

Wait till they get a load of this heat seeking moisture missile.

I can just see it now:

The cops bust in the door. They rush to the bedroom with guns drawn.

First cop: "All right! Stop what you're doing and keep your hands where I can see them!"

Second cop: "My God, look at the size of that thing!"

First cop: "I'm telling you, mister. Take your hands off your dick and put them where I can see them."

Second cop: "Man, I haven't seen anything that big since this guy got his dick stuck in an Accu-Jack and - "

Me: "I can't help it! I think it's gonna blow!"

First cop: "Now, everybody just be cool! Just take your hands off it! There! You see, not a problem." Nudges the second cop. "Okay. Go ahead. Cuff it."

 

[Siren]

Well here is another target for flaming.....

 

[CreamyLady]

What if he had been growing African violets?

This smacks way too much of Big Brother. Justice Scalia -- the man who brought us "Innocence is no bar to conviction," is running true to form.

Since there was an informant's tip, I suppose there was some probable cause. But I can't think that records from the utility company or heat imaging would really do it. Think of saunas, house plants, even people with SAD who brighten the place up.

Over the top. When do they wire us for smell? Sparky?

 

[BrainyBeauty]

Todd, thanks for the concern but I don't worry about getting flamed. First of all, I don't see a conspiracy lurking behind every bush.

Secondly, I am just soliciting opinions on whether the right to privacy still supersedes the right of unlawful search and seizure. Does the application of technology diminish our constitutional rights? I think not. As I said, I am not even arguing whether or not the guy was guilty (he was btw and so pleaded). I don't believe that we can allow the government to 'come into' our homes without probable cause, due process and legal permission (warrant signed and approved by the court system).

And Gaucho- were you the perp in question? I would love to see THAT mug shot!!! Where can I get copies of that-I want left, right and front views!

 

[Madame Pandora]

This is not only an invasion of privacy - it's a LAZY and blatant attempt to do nothing more but circumvent the need to obtain search warrants.

In instances of "just cause" many lines are blurry. This one isn't. It's wrong. The ends DO NOT justify the means. Once our law enforcement officials begin manipulating the law on a scale like this, it makes a mockery of the whole legal system.

Shameful.

And this is just the technology we KNOW about. Lord only knows how much worse crap is actually going on in experimental situations and top-secret missions .

MP

 

[Purple Haze]

Land of the Free?

A district court judge in Portland originally ruled against Kyllo, who pleaded guilty on the condition that he could appeal the legality of the search.

After an initial ruling in his favor, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the use of the thermal imaging device, saying its use did not constitute an illegal search.

It's a fucking outrage.

 

[fgarvb1]

It's about time.

people started catching on. when the "law" is what the law says it is no matter what is written a large section of this country will be happy.

tell me did you say anything when you were drug tested at your work place.? or did you say oh! i don't mind giving up some of my rights to prove i'm not hidding anything.!

the war on drugs quit being a real war on drugs a long time
ago.! now it's about money how to get it. and who to get it from.

do you realy think the u.s could not stop 80% of the drugs coming into this country if we wanted to. hell we invade and
bomb and police countries all the damn time.

note: when a right or protection is given up. you will never
get it back like it was.

 

[SimplySouthern]

Along the same lines, I have another question to pose to the members of this BB. You all seem to be (generally) a level headed group who can think a situation through, so I am asking for your opinion.

The local police here have been trying a new "technique" for narcotics investigation. They troll our city looking for homes in areas of town reputed to be high drug areas. They then have the officers get together and determine which houses they think are selling drugs.

Upon a group determination, they arrive unannounced at the person's home and do what is referred to as a "knock and talk". They knock on the person's door and ask about drug activity. Do you sell drugs, etc. My opinion is this. Walking to the door and flat out telling the person what you are doing there is one thing. Be straight up ... let them know you are there because you suspect illegal activity. Heck, go ahead and ask if you can come in. Perhaps they'll give consent, but it's highly unlikely.

My problem with the situation comes in when I recently found out that they watch and ask around of the other officers and of their "informents" to find out who the ringleader is in this "sales business" and also to find out the smaller players (weaker links they like to call them). Their game is to determine who the kingpin is and wait until this person is out of the house to knock. They use verbal intimidation to gain consent to search and then slap drug charges of high magnitude on the "weaker links" who they generally realize will turn evidence on a larger player.

For some reason, this is a little bothersome to me. Legally, nothing wrong with it. Just chafes me a little.

What do y'all think?