From: Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 05:16:52 +0800
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
In-Reply-To: <v02120d0cae366bab297f@[192.0.2.1]>
Message-ID: <32120231.388F659A@systemics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Lucky Green wrote:
> 
> At 9:27 8/13/96, Peter Trei wrote:
> 
> >I vaguely remember another possibly relevant precedent, where a
> >judge ruled that a warrant was required before a thermal imager
> >could be used to look at a house suspected by the police of
> >being a (pot) grow house.
> 
> Wrong. No warrant was used and the bust was upheld in court.

Hmm.  A case involving Texas cops hovering above a greenhouse for a
month using a 600mm telescope to peek through a 5-inch gap was thrown
out of court on the grounds that the crop was not in "plain view".
(Wheeler v State, Texas Court of Criminal appeals, 29/9/83).  However,
this was some time ago, so I'm sure the US constitution has been
whittled down a tad more since then.

Gary
--
pub  1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22  Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>
Key fingerprint =  0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D  1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06 
^S
^A^Aoft FAT filesytem is extremely robust, ^Mrarely suffering from^T^T