The Supreme Court overturned lower courts and ruled that use of a thermal imaging system constituted a search even though it took place from outside the walls of the home.
No clue how they're going to handle the recently introduced use of radar imaging (search Range-R made by L-3 Communications) but I fail to see how it would differ from using FLIR on a rooftop as was tossed out above.back in the prohibition era, moonshiners used barns way out in the country to make hooch.
In the winter, melted snow was a dead giveaway to the feds who monitored the barns, sometimes using airplanes for this.
I know this from meeting an old time bootlegger who used to install insulation in the roofs of these barns to keep from being caught.
You'll still find old barns out in the country with insulation in their roofs just for this very reason today.
So I don't see any reason that LE here wouldn't be able to get warrants based on this type of probable cause.
New England providers' incalls might also be discovered this way.
On the jurisdiction, the particular judge (at the trial court) or judges (on appeal) and the totality of the circumstances. The basic rule is that there has to be some indicia of criminality to be the basis sufficient probable cause. One could argue vigorously that this alone, while perhaps understandably raising suspicion, is not enough to issue a warrant or to justify a warrant-less search. This, combined with one other factor (such as frequent foot traffic in and out of the residence) would almost assuredly be enough.
The bottom line is you don't want to be in a position where you're relying on a judge to toss out what would otherwise be a solid case due to insufficient PC. In most jurisdictions, even judges that are initially appointed to the bench will need to run for re-election and I have yet to see anyone run on a "Soft on Crime" platform. Dismissing cases, which granting a suppression motion is tantamount to, doesn't look good on the ol' judicial resume'.
Seems like either way, it's hit and miss. There is something to having some accountability outside of the governor's office to maintain your position.
that was taken from a case involving increased electrical usage as PART of the basis for probable cause to search a residence: "It may well be true that none of the facts in the affidavit, standing alone, would be enough to provide probable cause. In combination, however, all of the factors noted in the affidavit add up to reasonable grounds to suspect illegal activity on defendants' property." U.S. v. Kohn, 958 F.2d 379.
Few things: 1) the statement points out that the courts almost always look at the "totality of the circumstances" when arriving at these decisions; 2) this is not exactly a cutting-edge legal issue, this case was published in 1996 and 3) I still think that melting snow on a roof, all by itself, would be a tough pitch for the prosecution. Wouldn't be guaranteeing a victory either but there certainly are judges who would find that fact alone would not be sufficient.
The Supreme Court overturned lower courts and ruled that use of a thermal imaging system constituted a search even though it took place from outside the walls of the home.
No clue how they're going to handle the recently introduced use of radar imaging (search Range-R made by L-3 Communications) but I fail to see how it would differ from using FLIR on a rooftop as was tossed out above.