Talk:Kyllo v. United States

message: Forgive me if my own interpretation is itself a misconception but this article seems to reinforce that the ruling means police "can't scan without a warrant". In other words stop them from warrantless surveillance of homes with technology.  Rather it meant that they no longer could use the information from a warrantless scan to obtain a search warrant or in court. They are still free to use infrared (now more likely through wall radar or x-ray) as they wish and make up a reason to obtain a warrant if they choose to be dishonest about it. The cable show Kopbusters had an episode in Odessa TX where they did just that. If this is correct the article should make this clear, that it does not limit them from using these technologies.Batvette (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the same can be said of any instance in which the police "choose to be dishonest about it".  That police might obtain information illegally is nothing new.  The bottom line is that they cannot legally use the technology, or any information that was obtained through its use, without a warrant.  —Grollτech (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input, but perhaps through my own wording I wasn't clear. Does the ruling mean the information from a scan can't be used in court or to obtain a warrant, or that they can't scan dwellings at all without a court order? You seem to suggest it's the latter and if that's the case the ruling is meaningless.  Every time we see footage from a police helicopter chasing a suspect at night they show FLIR scanning of the whole neighborhood. They ruled on a case where info from a scan was used to obtain a warrant, on their ruling the case was dismissed, right? So in the interest of improving the article perhaps we need to expand on this distinction because the article still makes it unclear because it doesn't say anywhere that their scan was now illegal, just that his conviction was overturned and the warrant obtained for his conviction was on the basis of the (unconstitutional) scan. Unconstitutional =/= illegal. Batvette (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconceptions about the limits imposed by this ruling 

message: The majority opinion reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanism of  the imager. A thermograph collects infrared radiation (thermal or heat radiation) and converts it to the visible spectrum. The infrared is present regardless of the presence or absence of the thermograph. Ina properly conducted investigation, the thermograph is the last step in establishing probable cause and is used to confirm the other observations (informants, smells, trash pulls, visual, etc.) indicating the probability that a marijuana grow operation is taking place. Use of the thermograph must take place from a vantage point which does not involve invading the curtilage of the property. 
Thermographs, far from being generally unavailable to the public, are merely expensive, in the case of commercial models, but may be as simple as a video camera with no infrared filter. These are usually available at Radio Shack. 
Kyllo appears to be a case where the police didn't conduct all of the steps to properly investigate the case or the government failed to adequately explain the investigation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltheDago (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The post actually displays a misunderstanding of the ruling, this is covered at length in the ruling as well as the dissenting arguments of the justices. While infrared radiation is emitted from the dwelling the fact was at the time of the ruling FLIR scanning equipment was prohibitively expensive for citizens to procure. It was mentioned the problem with developing and cheaper technologies. Essentially it sounds like you're presenting your opinion on the ruling and while you're entitled to it it's not really relevant, and the point you mention is well covered in the ruling. Interestingly enough while this prohibited passive technologies a certain American company has shipped in excess of 500 vans with X-ray through the wall scanning capability, many to domestic agencies. If they're not supposed to gather data on emissions from the structure what justification do they have for using invasive technologies? Are they really only using it on people and vehicles on common public property?Batvette (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flaws in the Decision