"Crack Camera" Upsets Criminals
Discussion
A small Florida community, beseiged by drug dealers, purchased a small high tech camera, installed it on their private property and aimed it at various public street corners to nab the drug dealers. They arranged to have the camera directly linked to community police car computers real time. Result: dealers are getting nailed. Some left wingers are crying invasion of privacy. WTF, the public streets offer "no expectation of privacy" per the law. What you do there is public domain. This is not a speed camera used for other means, or spying inside people's homes, etc. What say the PH collective?
The problem is whether the search falls into the category "unreasonable search and seizure" as defined by the Fourth Amendment.
The camera involved measures infrared emissions (heat). It finds up large heat sources, such as inefficient furnaces, modern political debate, and marijuana-growing lights.
Visual inspection from outside with the unaided eye from off the property is not by any means an unreasonable search - this is how a policeman would observe Joe striking Bill with a hammer on Main Street. On the other hand, systematically barging into all the houses in a high-crime area and inspecting the basements, opening the drawers, and having the canine units foul the carpet is definitely unreasonable unless a very good and very specific reason written on a search warrant by a judge.
The question here is where the camera stands between these two extremes. On one hand, it is a passive detector of emitted radiation - is a reasonable search limited simply by wavelength? On the other hand, it requires equipment beyond a simple human eye. Probable cause would also be necessary for the police to intercept a conversation that is taking place on a cellular telephone, and that only requires passive detection of electromagnetic radiation.
I believe that it is closer to the latter. The activity is conducted on private property and the parties involved are trying to conceal it - their concealment is no different from hiding it in a briefcase or calling on a private telephone line. If a police officer were to ask what was in your briefcase while you were in your office, you would not be obligated to reveal it unless he had probable cause.
This does not mean that I unilaterally disagree with the practice. I believe that there are areas where probable cause for search is sufficiently evident that searches involving such a camera would not be unreasonable - as long as they are subject to prior review.
>> Edited by chaparral on Wednesday 25th January 03:17
The camera involved measures infrared emissions (heat). It finds up large heat sources, such as inefficient furnaces, modern political debate, and marijuana-growing lights.
Visual inspection from outside with the unaided eye from off the property is not by any means an unreasonable search - this is how a policeman would observe Joe striking Bill with a hammer on Main Street. On the other hand, systematically barging into all the houses in a high-crime area and inspecting the basements, opening the drawers, and having the canine units foul the carpet is definitely unreasonable unless a very good and very specific reason written on a search warrant by a judge.
The question here is where the camera stands between these two extremes. On one hand, it is a passive detector of emitted radiation - is a reasonable search limited simply by wavelength? On the other hand, it requires equipment beyond a simple human eye. Probable cause would also be necessary for the police to intercept a conversation that is taking place on a cellular telephone, and that only requires passive detection of electromagnetic radiation.
I believe that it is closer to the latter. The activity is conducted on private property and the parties involved are trying to conceal it - their concealment is no different from hiding it in a briefcase or calling on a private telephone line. If a police officer were to ask what was in your briefcase while you were in your office, you would not be obligated to reveal it unless he had probable cause.
This does not mean that I unilaterally disagree with the practice. I believe that there are areas where probable cause for search is sufficiently evident that searches involving such a camera would not be unreasonable - as long as they are subject to prior review.
>> Edited by chaparral on Wednesday 25th January 03:17
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff