50 Police Agencies Can 'See' Inside Your House

[Kathianne]

I think everyone here knows I'm pretty 'pro-police,' but unless there are warrants involved, this seems unconstitutional to me. Since the justification is 'the police need to know where suspects are for a major raid, etc.', not having warrants shouldn't be a problem:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/


At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies quietly deployed radars that let them effectively see inside homes, with little notice to the courts or the public.
WASHINGTON — At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.


Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person's house without first obtaining a search warrant.


The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.


Current and former federal officials say the information is critical for keeping officers safe if they need to storm buildings or rescue hostages. But privacy advocates and judges have nonetheless expressed concern about the circumstances in which law enforcement agencies may be using the radars — and the fact that they have so far done so without public scrutiny.


"The idea that the government can send signals through the wall of your house to figure out what's inside is problematic," said Christopher Soghoian, the American Civil Liberties Union's principal technologist. "Technologies that allow the police to look inside of a home are among the intrusive tools that police have."


Agents' use of the radars was largely unknown until December, when a federal appeals court in Denver said officers had used one (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1505137-12-6001.html) before they entered a house to arrest a man wanted for violating his parole. The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that "the government's warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions."

...

[revelarts]

I think everyone here knows I'm pretty 'pro-police,' but unless there are warrants involved, this seems unconstitutional to me. Since the justification is 'the police need to know where suspects are for a major raid, etc.', not having warrants shouldn't be a problem:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/22007615/

interesting article, thanks for posting.

similar use but on the street now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsJbAXnZ-Z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=F0mFgHUqorw

well the 4th amendment is basically gone.
And IMO the nail in coffin was the law I posted about here link (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48023-unlimited-access-to-communications-of-every-American) about the the gov't having “unlimited access to the communications of every American”.

Kathianne you say your pro police, Ok so does that mean your ANTI-4th amendment... or vise versa?
Why can't we be PRO both?

you know the joke about the old couple still driving in the same car they dated in and one day on a trip back from the store the
wife says "When we were young we used to drive down the street all snuggled up together, what happen to those days Joe?" Old Joe looks over at her and says, "I haven't moved.".

The constitution hasn't moved, the bill of rights hasn't moved. the cops have. and in fact they've asked the bill of right to "step out of the car." ... for our protection or their protection of course. But the fact is the police swear an oath to uphold the constitution not to ignore it when it's inconvenient. We all feel the police are generally decent folks but at the same time everyone knows it's just human beings doing an important and difficult job. And human nature being what it is... a tool like this WILL be abused. An office memo about it ONLY being used in this way, is small assurance .. well no assurance... and illegal to boot (?). But give it 3 months and there'll be another report of it's use in some illegal way . And if things follow the modern track, the legislators will crave out another hole in the constitution for the police to walk thru so it won't be illegally in local state or fed law anymore and the 4th is ignored.
Putting ol Joe in the street as the car drives off.


Kath I'm not sure if you for the police's stated use of the tool or not.
should like you might be OK with it
but the slippery slope has already done the job.
But Since the justification is.... FILL IN THE BLANK .... not having warrants shouldn't be a problem right?
what's that gotten us?

leos now "legally" scan cell phones by remote as you travel.
leos now "legally" read and download cell phones on a routine stop and can demand you unlock it for them.
leos now "legally" do 'no knock warrants'.
leos now "legally" record all phone calls and computer activity.
leos now "legally" fly drones over your home and yard taking pictures.
leos now "legally" can ask a 2nd party in the house if it's OK for them to come if someone has already refused.
leos now "legally" use items found against you if the warrant was found faulty
leos now "legally" present illegally obtained evidence to grand jury's, and after it goes to trial the defendant has the option of contesting it.
"The Supreme Court has also held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in certain situations: (1) probation or parole revocation hearings; (2) tax hearings; (3) deportation hearings; (4) when government officials illegally seize evidence outside the United States; (5) when a “private actor” (i.e., not a government employee) illegally seized the evidence; or (6) when the illegally seized evidence is used to impeach the defendant’s testimony. In 2011 the Supreme Court essentially eviscerated the Fourth Amendment when it ruled 8-1 in Kentucky v. King that the police may forcibly enter your home without a search warrant as long as they believe someone inside is trying to destroy evidence of a crime."
leos now "legally" search our snail mail.
leos now "legally" turn on the camera of you computer or Xbox and watch you in your home.
(But police unions don't want citizens to take pictures of them.)


were pretty well cooked and done.

[Kathianne]

interesting article, thanks for posting.

similar use but on the street now.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsJbAXnZ-Z8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=F0mFgHUqorw

well the 4th amendment is basically gone.
And IMO the nail in coffin was the law I posted about here link (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48023-unlimited-access-to-communications-of-every-American) about the the gov't having “unlimited access to the communications of every American”.

Kathianne you say your pro police, Ok so does that mean your ANTI-4th amendment... or vise versa?
Why can't we be PRO both?

you know the joke about the old couple still driving in the same car they dated in and one day on a trip back from the store the
wife says "When we were young we used to drive down the street all snuggled up together, what happen to those days Joe?" Old Joe looks over at her and says, "I haven't moved.".

The constitution hasn't moved, the bill of rights hasn't moved. the cops have. and in fact they've asked the bill of right to "step out of the car." ... for our protection or their protection of course. But the fact is the police swear an oath to uphold the constitution not to ignore it when it's inconvenient. We all feel the police are generally decent folks but at the same time everyone knows it's just human beings doing an important and difficult job. And human nature being what it is... a tool like this WILL be abused. An office memo about it ONLY being used in this way, is small assurance .. well no assurance... and illegal to boot (?). But give it 3 months and there'll be another report of it's use in some illegal way . And if things follow the modern track, the legislators will crave out another hole in the constitution for the police to walk thru so it won't be illegally in local state or fed law anymore and the 4th is ignored.
Putting ol Joe in the street as the car drives off.


Kath I'm not sure if you for the police's stated use of the tool or not.
should like you might be OK with it
but the slippery slope has already done the job.
But Since the justification is.... FILL IN THE BLANK .... not having warrants shouldn't be a problem right?
what's that gotten us?

leos now "legally" scan cell phones by remote as you travel.
leos now "legally" read and download cell phones on a routine stop and can demand you unlock it for them.
leos now "legally" do 'no knock warrants'.
leos now "legally" record all phone calls and computer activity.
leos now "legally" fly drones over your home and yard taking pictures.
leos now "legally" can ask a 2nd party in the house if it's OK for them to come if someone has already refused.
leos now "legally" use items found against you if the warrant was found faulty
leos now "legally" present illegally obtained evidence to grand jury's, and after it goes to trial the defendant has the option of contesting it.
"The Supreme Court has also held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in certain situations: (1) probation or parole revocation hearings; (2) tax hearings; (3) deportation hearings; (4) when government officials illegally seize evidence outside the United States; (5) when a “private actor” (i.e., not a government employee) illegally seized the evidence; or (6) when the illegally seized evidence is used to impeach the defendant’s testimony. In 2011 the Supreme Court essentially eviscerated the Fourth Amendment when it ruled 8-1 in Kentucky v. King that the police may forcibly enter your home without a search warrant as long as they believe someone inside is trying to destroy evidence of a crime."
leos now "legally" search our snail mail.
leos now "legally" turn on the camera of you computer or Xbox and watch you in your home.
(But police unions don't want citizens to take pictures of them.)


were pretty well cooked and done.

I really think I made clear my point.

[SassyLady]

It's interesting how often life imitates art ..... Anyone seen any of these movies?

Enemy of the State
Minority Report
The Conversation
The Truman Show
1984

Starting to not seem like fiction anymore.

[indago]

The constitution hasn't moved, the bill of rights hasn't moved. the cops have. and in fact they've asked the bill of right to "step out of the car." ... for our protection or their protection of course. But the fact is the police swear an oath to uphold the constitution not to ignore it when it's inconvenient.

We were warned about this over a hundred years ago:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. ...It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." — Justice Joseph Bradley - United States Supreme Court (1886)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If a man sees a wrong, and does nothing, can he then call himself a man?" — kwai chang caine

[Jeff]

This X ray type thing has been going on for at least 25 years, I use to haul containers ( over sea containers from the sea ports ) and off of every ship so many had to go through the X ray process, it stunk because it would take all day. I agree with the police using these like I described or in a case where they have probable cause, or at the check points coming into the country.But should the local police department be able to just look just to look no, they should have to have probable cause and maybe even a warrant, such as what they get when they impound a car and search it, but to be able to just look at any car no that isn't right, heck what is going to stop them from turning that thing on every time they see a pretty woman? Just my 2 cents.

[revelarts]

It's interesting how often life imitates art ..... Anyone seen any of these movies?

Enemy of the State
Minority Report
The Conversation
The Truman Show
1984

Starting to not seem like fiction anymore.

yep,

but there was something like this x-ray device in the 1996 Movie 'Eraser' with Arnold Swazenge....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCeCVZqcpnE
pretty good depiction, except theres no green warning light in the home to tell you you're being x-rayed though.
Earlier in that film they showed the bad guys (corrupt gov't/corp officials) using it at a home from a van outside i think.

[aboutime]

Just wondering. Has anyone here on DP ever read "1984"?

Nobody wanted to listen. Nobody wants to know. Is it just a coincidence?

Anybody know who the new judges are for AMERICAN IDOL this year?

Anybody know the rankings of the NBA today?


Anybody know, or understand what the letters "I.S.I.S." Stand for?

Do you care?

BET.....99 Percent of Americans have NO IDEA.

[revelarts]

Bump just because i ran across it in a search