Here goes another chunk of freedom.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

FREE TIBET! *
* with purchase of equal or lesser Tibet

LMAO

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[CornishChris 5]

My brain hurts after reading that post.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[Coreece 190]

Quote

My brain hurts after reading that post.

I try...I do.

At least you give enough a shit to try and figure it out...

Thanks...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I think someone could make a Kyllo argument about this. The government is using technology not available to the public to do warrantless searches...isn't that exactly what that case was about?

I agree that a Kyllo argument would be a basis of a defense pre-trial motion to suppress evidence. The defense, as you suggest, would say that the drones are technology not available to the public.

But the prosecution could counter that in Kyllo, but for the thermal imagers, one could not otherwise have detected the heat signature emanating from the house in that case. Whereas, in this case, by contrast, using drones gets you no more observation that using helicopters does: to see, from the air, what is otherwise in plain sight.

My own experience is that rulings on motions to suppress often are influenced by the philosophical and/or political inclinations of the individual judge, with the result being that about 70% tend to be clearly pro-prosecution, 20% strictly neutral, and about 10% being pro-defense. And, Texas is a fairly conservative jurisdiction. Thus, I'd handicap the odds at around a 70-80% chance that the trial court will rule in favor of the prosecution on this one.

It's an interesting case, and bears watching to see how much courts are, or are not, willing to expand Kyllo. Thanks.

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Wow. Talk about illegal search and seizure suits in the future!
Houston

How about this technology? AR.Drone
http://pulse2.com/2010/01/07/parrot-launching-an-iphoneipod-touch-remote-control-helicopter-at-ces/

My son-in-law has a similar model with HDTV, controlled by an app on his Ipad. He can fly it into your house, check your home environment and, post it straight to Facebook in a matter of seconds. No reason why the authorities couldn't do the same. And, a lot cheaper than the above mentioned drone.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[sfzombie 3]

the use of thermal imaging to find a grow operation should be illegal due to the fact that indoor growing is not illegal, indoor growing of pot is. thermal imaging can't distinguish what you're growing. and talk about illegal, whatever happened to posse commitatus(sp)? they're using the military to search and destroy pot grows, and nobody is up in arms about this why?

http://kitswv.com

[Skyrad 0]

Thats awesome! (Wonder what the range is though)

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

I was under the impression that thermal cameras cannot be used as evidence for indoor pot farms, but they use them anyways to locate them, and then stakeout until they do find reasonable cause.

who cares it is still illegal, that alone should be reasonable cause

So innocent ciizens are subject to their privacy being invaded just to catch that one in every 500,000 that may be growing some pot?

Seriously?

[RonD1120 62]

Thanksgiving Day he flew it from my backyard to a point approximately 300 meters away. He said it would fly farther but, I forget how far.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[davjohns 1]

Like Andy said, it depends on the Judge and jurisdiction most of the time. Are drug dogs generally available to the public? Yet, their alert can be used as a basis for a search. Why not thermal imagery? I can order that off the internet easier than the dog. We start splitting hairs in this arena, and it just depends on which hairs the Judge is willing to let us split.

I'm rather split on searches. If a cop asked me politely to look over my car and seemed a bit embarassed by it, I would likely tell him go ahead. I have nothing to hide. If he threatened to get a dog or warrant and acted as if he had the right, I would tell him to piss up a rope.

As a cop, I never mirandized anyone or asked any questions. I either had them or I didn't. Same way with warrants. I had my hands full dealing with people who were obviously criminals. I didn't have time to play in the grey area of evidence.

As an attorney, it has always amazed me how many cops and prosecutors get emotionally involved and try to find all new ways to prosecute someone while six time losers are being offered probation to get them processed. It's a numbers game that leads to re-election most of the time. Sheesh.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

Try to restrain yourself. Or her.

Involving restraints is likely to just amp up the volume level ...

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

This is very interesting to me...any references?

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)


"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."-- 7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES

The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity. Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5

A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a “special relationship” between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant’s conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer’s prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer’s surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer’s inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct. Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252

The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist’s wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable. Westbrooks v. State (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674

Here are more:
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989) 489 US 189
Bower v. DeVito (1982) 686 F.2d 616
Calgorides v. Mobile (1985) 475 So.2d 560
Warren v. District of Columbia (1983) 444 A.2d 1
Morgan v. District of Columbia (1983) 469 A.2d 1306
Sapp v. Tallahassee (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert.denied 354 So.2d 985
Keane v. Chicago (1968) 98 Ill.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321
Jamison v. Chicago (1977) 48 Ill.3d 567
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville 272 N.E. 2d 871
Silver v. Minneapolis (1969)) 170 N.W.2d 206
Wuetrich v. Delia (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929
Chapman v. Philadelphia (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 753
Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority (1982) 55 N.Y.2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Like Andy said, it depends on the Judge and jurisdiction most of the time. Are drug dogs generally available to the public? Yet, their alert can be used as a basis for a search. Why not thermal imagery? I can order that off the internet easier than the dog. We start splitting hairs in this arena, and it just depends on which hairs the Judge is willing to let us split.
.

I have no problem with anybody using thermal imaging but it should not be the basis for any sort of search. Having grow lamps is not illegal.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I was under the impression that thermal cameras cannot be used as evidence for indoor pot farms, but they use them anyways to locate them, and then stakeout until they do find reasonable cause.

who cares it is still illegal, that alone should be reasonable cause

So innocent ciizens are subject to their privacy being invaded just to catch that one in every 500,000 that may be growing some pot?

Seriously?

You don't actually think that all the money that has been thrown at law enforcement and the Dept of Homeland Security for the WAR ON DRUGS and the WAR ON TERROR has ANYTHING to do with this???

Under the guise of the Patriot Act we have stepped completely over the line into a police state. I think a few of us warned about that ... back ohhhhhh 6 or 7 years ago ... now I really don't give a shit anymore because vast amounts of money have been spent to make sure that a system has been put in place to define most Americans as THEM and not on the same side as LEO aka US. I swear to god most LEO are incapable of seeing most of their fellow Americans as anything other than probable perpetrators out to get them personally.

AS a group they need some serious fucking time in therapy to work out those issues.

[Abedy 0]

Unwarranted searches or "search without suspicion". The East German Homeland Security (that's what "Staatssicherheit" may be translated to) would have wet their pants if they had had technology like that.
It's the "Who watches the watchers" question and/or the evergreen "I do not have anything to hide, so why care? But I bet drones will be shown as a very helpful source of information at the several "CSI" shades-up-and-down series and the like... 1984? Well no, it's just for SECURITY reasons! And anyway, comrade, how come you ask dangerous questions like that? And how come you refer to a book that doesn't exist!

The sky is not the limit. The ground is.

The Society of Skydiving Ducks

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Like Andy said, it depends on the Judge and jurisdiction most of the time. Are drug dogs generally available to the public? Yet, their alert can be used as a basis for a search. Why not thermal imagery? I can order that off the internet easier than the dog. We start splitting hairs in this arena, and it just depends on which hairs the Judge is willing to let us split.

I'm rather split on searches. If a cop asked me politely to look over my car and seemed a bit embarassed by it, I would likely tell him go ahead. I have nothing to hide. If he threatened to get a dog or warrant and acted as if he had the right, I would tell him to piss up a rope.

As a cop, I never mirandized anyone or asked any questions. I either had them or I didn't. Same way with warrants. I had my hands full dealing with people who were obviously criminals. I didn't have time to play in the grey area of evidence.

As an attorney, it has always amazed me how many cops and prosecutors get emotionally involved and try to find all new ways to prosecute someone while six time losers are being offered probation to get them processed. It's a numbers game that leads to re-election most of the time. Sheesh.

That is a Disturbing statement from someone wearing a badge!(especially the "obviously criminals")

As a Police officer serving a warrant, your frame of mind should be , "I am servinga warrant on a citizen, that may or may not be guilty, so I need to aproach with care, but treat them as innocent!"

It is not a police officers job to decide guilt, only make the arrest...that statement sounds as though your mind is made up , just because a judge signed a warrant!

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I was under the impression that thermal cameras cannot be used as evidence for indoor pot farms, but they use them anyways to locate them, and then stakeout until they do find reasonable cause.

who cares it is still illegal, that alone should be reasonable cause

So innocent ciizens are subject to their privacy being invaded just to catch that one in every 500,000 that may be growing some pot?

Seriously?

You don't actually think that all the money that has been thrown at law enforcement and the Dept of Homeland Security for the WAR ON DRUGS and the WAR ON TERROR has ANYTHING to do with this???

Under the guise of the Patriot Act we have stepped completely over the line into a police state. I think a few of us warned about that ... back ohhhhhh 6 or 7 years ago ... now I really don't give a shit anymore because vast amounts of money have been spent to make sure that a system has been put in place to define most Americans as THEM and not on the same side as LEO aka US. I swear to god most LEO are incapable of seeing most of their fellow Americans as anything other than probable perpetrators out to get them personally.

AS a group they need some serious fucking time in therapy to work out those issues.

STOP IT, Damn IT, STOP IT....You keep saying things I totally agree with!

[firemedic 7]

Quote

I think cop shops are getting worse about that.

They do not work on the public safety and interest. It's for profit, politics, elections.

One of the Local Police Departments here set up a portable traffic camera on an 8 mile stretch of Interstate 95 that passes through their jurisdiction.
They claim they did it to improve traffic safety. Everyone here thinks they did it to increase revenue from citations. I drive it every weekend on my way to the DZ. Seems that the word it out because most people slow down until they past the camera and then speed back up.

[AdamLanes 1]

I think its funny that the video title calls for the police to "stop illegal activities on Americans". Okay, so when the government says its legal for them to do this, that makes it okay? Is the law is your determinant of what is right/wrong, good/bad, moral/immoral?

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Like Andy said, it depends on the Judge and jurisdiction most of the time. Are drug dogs generally available to the public? Yet, their alert can be used as a basis for a search. Why not thermal imagery? I can order that off the internet easier than the dog. We start splitting hairs in this arena, and it just depends on which hairs the Judge is willing to let us split.

I'm rather split on searches. If a cop asked me politely to look over my car and seemed a bit embarassed by it, I would likely tell him go ahead. I have nothing to hide. If he threatened to get a dog or warrant and acted as if he had the right, I would tell him to piss up a rope.

As a cop, I never mirandized anyone or asked any questions. I either had them or I didn't. Same way with warrants. I had my hands full dealing with people who were obviously criminals. I didn't have time to play in the grey area of evidence.

As an attorney, it has always amazed me how many cops and prosecutors get emotionally involved and try to find all new ways to prosecute someone while six time losers are being offered probation to get them processed. It's a numbers game that leads to re-election most of the time. Sheesh.

That is a Disturbing statement from someone wearing a badge!(especially the "obviously criminals")

As a Police officer serving a warrant, your frame of mind should be , "I am servinga warrant on a citizen, that may or may not be guilty, so I need to aproach with care, but treat them as innocent!"

It is not a police officers job to decide guilt, only make the arrest...that statement sounds as though your mind is made up , just because a judge signed a warrant!

I think you read alot into that. I was once a cop. When I was a cop, I had my hands full dealing with people who broke the law in front of me or a bunch of witnesses. I didn't need to stretch the rules of evidence. If someone had drugs and scales laying the back seat during a traffic stop (happened), why would I worry about getting into someone's garage or trunk or whatever? If you can watch a stream of people going to a house to make small, quick purchases of something in a plastic bag, do a traffic stop on one and have them tell you, "Yeah, that's my crack dealer" why worry about thermal imaging?

"Obviously criminals" referred to all those times I could view the offense or had people around me dying to tell me what they saw. I had enough of that to keep me busy.

Does that clarify things?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

when was the last time you saw "protect and serve" on a police car? I haven't for a long time.

Well according to southpark the saying should be "to patronize and annoy...."

so true...unless you're a white boy living in detroit...hell, even the thugs won't mess with you...

Quote

SCOTUS ruled they don't have to protect you.

This is very interesting to me...any references?

this is twice in one day I felt left in the dark...seriously though...

first google hit:
http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

this was 5+ years ago.

Quote

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.

--
Rob

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

... If the government won't protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.

...and have the bail money ready to get yourself out when they arrest YOU for defending yourself.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Like Andy said, it depends on the Judge and jurisdiction most of the time. Are drug dogs generally available to the public? Yet, their alert can be used as a basis for a search. Why not thermal imagery? I can order that off the internet easier than the dog. We start splitting hairs in this arena, and it just depends on which hairs the Judge is willing to let us split.

I'm rather split on searches. If a cop asked me politely to look over my car and seemed a bit embarassed by it, I would likely tell him go ahead. I have nothing to hide. If he threatened to get a dog or warrant and acted as if he had the right, I would tell him to piss up a rope.

As a cop, I never mirandized anyone or asked any questions. I either had them or I didn't. Same way with warrants. I had my hands full dealing with people who were obviously criminals. I didn't have time to play in the grey area of evidence.

As an attorney, it has always amazed me how many cops and prosecutors get emotionally involved and try to find all new ways to prosecute someone while six time losers are being offered probation to get them processed. It's a numbers game that leads to re-election most of the time. Sheesh.

That is a Disturbing statement from someone wearing a badge!(especially the "obviously criminals")

As a Police officer serving a warrant, your frame of mind should be , "I am servinga warrant on a citizen, that may or may not be guilty, so I need to aproach with care, but treat them as innocent!"

It is not a police officers job to decide guilt, only make the arrest...that statement sounds as though your mind is made up , just because a judge signed a warrant!

I think you read alot into that. I was once a cop. When I was a cop, I had my hands full dealing with people who broke the law in front of me or a bunch of witnesses. I didn't need to stretch the rules of evidence. If someone had drugs and scales laying the back seat during a traffic stop (happened), why would I worry about getting into someone's garage or trunk or whatever? If you can watch a stream of people going to a house to make small, quick purchases of something in a plastic bag, do a traffic stop on one and have them tell you, "Yeah, that's my crack dealer" why worry about thermal imaging?

"Obviously criminals" referred to all those times I could view the offense or had people around me dying to tell me what they saw. I had enough of that to keep me busy.

Does that clarify things?

Lost control of that underline thingy did ya?

Said that way , That is a "totally" different statement,than your original, and yes, Said that way, it makes sense!

[Andy9o8 2]

Is this the DB Cooper thread?

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Thanksgiving Day he flew it from my backyard to a point approximately 300 meters away. He said it would fly farther but, I forget how far.

I erred, change 300 meters to read 100 meters. I was thinking feet and meters at the same time I was drinking coffee.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.