The T5000 camera making weapon concealment obselete.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I know there is a natural amount that you are exposed to daily.....I just wonder about additional exposure that would be outside that "normal" and dare I say "healthy" exposure.

You know what they said about radar units and the location cops placed them when not in use. Still in operation and exposing the "body" to transmissions.

But I am thinking this device would not make it here for use on the public. That is still a search even if you are not touching someone. Same already goes for using infrared on a house to see how many people are inside. You still need a warrant.

Click to expand...

The anecdotal stories of 'radar-guns' in the crotch were of units ON and at very close range and long term chronic abuse. All radiation, hi and low energy, obeys the 'inverse square' law, changing the distance by a factor of 2 changes the intensity by a factor of 2^2 = 4. Kind'a like keeping a lit lighter in your pocket.

The referenced chart has seven ordered entries before the US cosmic-ray radiation is noted. Then there are 27 entries to 500 - 1000 mSv for radiation sickness due to acute exposure for a range of 5 powers of ten.

Radiation should be your last worry. Just like a dirty-bomb, if it was easy then everybody would do it. The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

imported post

Noted..... You know your radiation that is for sure.

imported post

The ability to see what is in my pockets crosses into my expectation of privacy. I would see little difference between the use of such a device and an illegal search of my person.

imported post

irfner wrote:

The ability to see what is in my pockets crosses into my expectation of privacy. I would see little difference between the use of such a device and an illegal search of my person.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

But I am thinking this device would not make it here for use on the public. That is still a search even if you are not touching someone. Same already goes for using infrared on a house to see how many people are inside. You still need a warrant.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle, but demanding a warrant is impossible if you're not aware that you're being scanned. Walking down the street, or through a shopping mall, or on the sidewalk past a federal building of some sort, you'd never know.

And although I thnk they need a warrant in principle for this, I also am of the opinion they should get a warrant before searching and sniffing my private belongings in airports or train stations, and my opinion means squat there, so I am a bit pessemistic when I think about how these things would wind up in public places under the guise of "public safety".

imported post

Agreed.

Wire taps could happen too and information obtainedwhere a reverse investigation isapplied to make it all work.

You would never know how they knew!

In the case of using the device at the mall... it would be hard to articulate how you knew the gang banger had a gun and justify the stop. But anything is possible.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

irfner wrote:

The ability to see what is in my pockets crosses into my expectation of privacy. I would see little difference between the use of such a device and an illegal search of my person.

Click to expand...

Exactly!!

Click to expand...

Yet you see no problem with a K-9 sniffing the car (sans warrant) of someone refusing a search.... interesting.:?

imported post

Yes... that is correct...

A dog sniffing would be no different that a human sniffing a man he is standing next to who stinks.

There is no invasion of privacy. No removal or even touching of clothing....

If man or dog smells pot in the air... nosearch has been done... there is a simply a subject who smells of pot.

This creates a reason to search.

I do hope you understand. There is a logical reason for each of my opinions and oddly enough the courts agree with me.. or should I say I agree with the courts.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Yes... that is correct...

A dog sniffing would be no different that a human sniffing a man he is standing next to who stinks.

There is no invasion of privacy. No removal or even touching of clothing....

If man or dog smells pot in the air... nosearch has been done... there is a simply a subject who smells of pot.

This creates a reason to search.

I do hope you understand. There is a logical reason for each of my opinions and oddly enough the courts agree with me.. or should I say I agree with the courts.

Click to expand...

See... there's where I see the difference. If someone is absolutely REEKING of (whatever scent) then I can understand that being suitable to establish 'cause'.

However, what we're talkign about here is (IMHO) a vindictive intensive 'nose search' by an animal who gets 'rewarded' for 'finding' (conflict of interest much?)something simply because Officer Friendly took umbrage to his 'subject' denying his request for a search.

It would be like standing at a bus stop, seeing some (attractive person) and then you go over and start sniffing them up and down. By your logic, since you aren't touching them, then there is no invasion of privacy, no matter HOW close to them (or WHERE) you stick your schnoz.

Sorry.... I'm can't see how that Jane Q. Public would NOT feel violated if you were to stick YOUR nose in HER crotch (or butt crack). Same goes for my car and your dog.

The human nose can't determine BAC, but a little black box can. The human nose can't detect TRACES of (forbidden fruit), but a (trained) dog can (alert to it). BUT according to what you're saying, you still need to establish suspision before proceeding with a breathlyzer, whereas you can use the dog to ESTABLISH suspicion. The dog is a tool. A living tool, but a tool none the less. To use a tool in this manner when there is NO OTHER CAUSE TO WARRANT SUSPISION contitutes a 'search'. It's one thing if the dog is back at the squad car, and suddently goes ape-sh*t when the wind shifts....it is something else entirely to LEAD the dog around the car, pointing out where you want him to sniff. You are having the dog actively SEARCH for a scent.

See what I'm saying? It IS a 'SEARCH'. Just because the 'courts' say it's 'legal' doesn't make it right.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

A dog sniffing would be no different that a human sniffing a man he is standing next to who stinks.

There is no invasion of privacy. No removal or even touching of clothing....

If man or dog smells pot in the air... nosearch has been done... there is a simply a subject who smells of pot.

Click to expand...

The difference in my mind is that a dog uses an enhanced sense of smell. Whereas a human could not detect trace amounts of pot in the air, a dog is used to detect this.

To apply it to the OP, this machine essentially enhances a screener's vision. Whereas he would not be able to see a concealed handgun, a machine (in theory) is used to provide this extra power.

Just my two cents...

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

See... there's where I see the difference. If someone is absolutely REEKING of (whatever scent) then I can understand that being suitable to establish 'cause'.

However, what we're talkign about here is (IMHO) a vindictive intensive 'nose search' by an animal who gets 'rewarded' for 'finding' (conflict of interest much?)something simply because Officer Friendly took umbrage to his 'subject' denying his request for a search.

It would be like standing at a bus stop, seeing some (attractive person) and then you go over and start sniffing them up and down. By your logic, since you aren't touching them, then there is no invasion of privacy, no matter HOW close to them (or WHERE) you stick your schnoz.

Sorry.... I'm can't see how that Jane Q. Public would NOT feel violated if you were to stick YOUR nose in HER crotch (or butt crack). Same goes for my car and your dog.

The human nose can't determine BAC, but a little black box can. The human nose can't detect TRACES of (forbidden fruit), but a (trained) dog can (alert to it). BUT according to what you're saying, you still need to establish suspision before proceeding with a breathlyzer, whereas you can use the dog to ESTABLISH suspicion. The dog is a tool. A living tool, but a tool none the less. To use a tool in this manner when there is NO OTHER CAUSE TO WARRANT SUSPISION contitutes a 'search'. It's one thing if the dog is back at the squad car, and suddently goes ape-sh*t when the wind shifts....it is something else entirely to LEAD the dog around the car, pointing out where you want him to sniff. You are having the dog actively SEARCH for a scent.

See what I'm saying? It IS a 'SEARCH'. Just because the 'courts' say it's 'legal' doesn't make it right.

Click to expand...

If I am speaking with female and I am downwind.. I may smell the odor of burnt marijuana without having to get anywhere nearher private area or even invade her personal space.

This is no different than looking at someone in public and that is NOT a search.

If my dog, an animal, invades her space..... as all dogs will probably do and is welcomed by most humans who simply cannot resist petting them.....the dog may hit on the odor I could not smell. Once again... the only thing being searched is the air for the odor of a illegal narcotic.

Sniffing the air is not a search. The dog is not making you empty your pocket to see anything that would embarrass you. Only the air around you is being sniffed.

Now you have began the straw man argument and brought in a device where the subject actively participates in providing something. This is no longer a sniff!!

The field breath test is voluntary and is offered ONLY after the intoxicated driver has been observed driving drunk and has failed a bunch of tests. So now there is a valid reason for the test and it is actually for the driver's benefit. I MUST offer it to him by law.

If he is well below .08 he does not get charged with DWI and may not even be arrested. If he does not blow and he flunked the tests.. he WILL be arrested, his car WILL be towed, and hemay end up passing the breath test at the station house.

Offering the field test is a way to prevent this inconvenience.

Now you may not like the idea of adog walking around a car... but if the officer believes the vehicle may contain illegal drugs... it is permissible. This is how drug traffickers are found. The dog is not walked around each and every car. The dog is a tool just like a flashlight. A cop does not pull it out unless he needs to use it.

You may not like dog sniffs... but the courts have ruled they are OK. So contact the state and file your protest. Maybe then more drug dealers will be able to get by the cops. :shock:

imported post

I realized today at work that the breathalyzer was a bad choce of example because of the very nature of the active participation of the victim.
(BTW... I can't speak for VA but in Washington the blow test is NOT voluntary...you refuse? BANG!! Yer cuffed...tell it to the judge)

How about we substitute a Geiger Counter instead? Would you say a sweep with a geiger counter would be 'OK' simply because someone refused consent for a search?

I see no difference between a Geiger Counter sweep, and a DIRECTED dog sniff (do please try to stay on the topic of DIRECTED sniffs, and not general aromas, or random happenstance 'hits' as you described) for 'drug scent' (conducted solely because of a refused consent to search) when there is no other percievable reason to beleive it's exisitance. It's an action that is purely vindictive, and unreasonable (ergo a violation of the Fourth), and any fruit of the search should be concidered spoiled by the circumstances.

I already allowed for someone with an 'uncontained' aroma. That's not what we're talking about here. (at least.. that's not what I'M talking about) Dog lover or not, I still think Jane Q Public would not take it lightly if your dog were to just up and stuff it's nose into her crotch. She may not be 'offended' per se, but I doubt she would let it go unchallenged. A step back and a gentle swat to the nose would be the automatic reaction of 99% of the population I think.

If YOU were to just walk up and (keeping your nose at least 3" from her at all times) just started sniffing her up , down and all around (with no other cause), I'd dare say she WOULD be offended, and you'd probbably be in your boss's office in short order getting a 'dressing down', as it were.....AFTER she beaned you with her purse!

imported post

Back to the top for some more physics.

http://www.physorg.com/news124734398.html

For several years, Hanlon and his colleagues have looked at the possibility of analyzing the brain with near-infrared light, which has the advantage of being able to safely penetrate the skull and pass harmlessly through the brain. Inside the head, some of the infrared light scatters, however, and how the light scatters can tell researchers about the condition of the brain.

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Other_imaging

Other imaging

In infrared photography, infrared filters are used to capture the near-infrared spectrum. Digital cameras often use infrared blockers. Cheaper digital cameras and camera phones have less effective filters and can "see" intense near-infrared, appearing as a bright purple-white color. This is especially pronounced when taking pictures of subjects near IR-bright areas (such as near a lamp), where the resulting infrared interference can wash out the image. There is also a technique called 'T-ray' imaging[My emphasis], which is imaging using far infrared or terahertz radiation. Lack of bright sources makes terahertz photography technically more challenging than most other infrared imaging techniques. Recently T-ray imaging has been of considerable interest due to a number of new developments such as terahertz time-domain spectroscopy.

Click to expand...

But this still ain't a 'T-wave camera.'

I introduced the use of the radio frequency time-domain reflectometer to my shop.

imported post

Makes me think of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkhOAd7bcTY