Lord, you too? Can't contribute too a thread. Not cop bashing so think that all that you want, you see what you want to see, and you just want to see what isn't intended. FWI, I copied and pasted the title of the article, does that make sense to you?

 

As I also said in a later post, which you either conveniently failed to read or ignored it, many other LEO's that I deal with, and members of those three letter agencies agree that there are bad LEO's that need to be exposed, no matter how many, the few (by percentage) are giving a very bad name for the other 1 million out there. They all agree, it's not bashing if it's true., get them out of their career. But again, you don't want to see the intent of the thread, so thread jack all you want.

 

Curious, why does your title say Georgia and the link says Kansas?

 

And anything coming from "The free thought protect" is anti police. It's not unbiased. It's not about police accountability. It's anti police. I'm not sure what "Raw story" is but if they share things from The free thought protect, they too are anti police.

I was on Google for 2 seconds and found a better article that says that the sheriff's office, the Kansas bureau of investigation and the FBI served a search warrant in the house looking for a subject with FELONY warrants. The cop block article says it was misdemeanors. Lie number 1? Does the cop block article mention the search warrant?

 

The FBI and KBI destroyed the house and the FBI says they will pay for all damages, once the home owner files a claim.

I guess it's all in how you shop.

The man they were looking for was also apparently wanted on federal charges, which is why the FBI was involved. They received information he was there, that's why they got a search warrant.

 

 

He is also apparently a member of the "honkies" a white supremacist gang.

 

No mention in my unbiased article of this infrared technology being used. I would advise anyone in this thread to do their own research in this case and do not believe anything in the original article without verifying it througha legit source.

The man they were looking for was also apparently wanted on federal charges, which is why the FBI was involved. They received information he was there, that's why they got a search warrant.

 

 

He is also apparently a member of the "honkies" a white supremacist gang.

 

No mention in my unbiased article of this infrared technology being used. I would advise anyone in this thread to do their own research in this case and do not believe anything in the original article without verifying it througha legit source.

It's easier to post the garbage.

Lie number two from cop block. They said it was misdemeanor warrants in lie 1. In lie 2, they mention an assault on a police officer charge and another drug related charge.

 

From a real article...

 

Alexius, who authorities say is a member of a Missouri prison gang called the Honkies, is wanted in that state on charges of failure to appear in court on a misdemeanor charge of assaulting a police officer and felony counts of attempted burglary, receiving stolen property, property damage, possession of controlled substance and resisting arrest.

 

So yeah...his "drug related charge" mentioned by cop block is actually attempted burglary, receiving stolen property, possession of a controlled substance and resisting arrest.

There is the issue about the mistake, but I would like to know what people feel about the other issue, the use of infrared cameras.

 

It could be seen as invasion of privacy, use the technology to spy on people? Then find something so that you can get a warrent to go in?

 

Kansas cops demolish single mom?s home and destroy children?s Christmas tree ? by mistake

 

Can just about anyone buy an infrared camera?

Clyde posted a link about SCOTUS saying cops can't use them, at least what may be in cases like this.

 

Let's say there is no reason LEO's would suspect you of anything. But for some reason they were using the infrared and found something that they may be interested in that was in your home, then made up a reason to get a warrant to enter. That is the issue some will have.

 

But yes, it does have its place.

 

Clyde posted the link so that pretty much clears that up.

 

I'm struggling to figure me a scenario that n which police use infrared on a home, "see something they're interested in" and then make up a reason for a warrant. Please elaborate because I can't hypothesize such a scenario in my mind.

No legit articles I've found even mention the infrared.

 

From what I can tell, they had a search warrant, so the infrared would have been allowed anyway? They thought he wss in the attic and had reason to believe he was armed.

 

Not to mention he had charges for assaulting police, and resisting.

A little from the link that Clyde posted:

 

(June 11)

The Supreme Court today, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment.

-----

The 5-4 opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, restated the court's previous findings that a visual search of a home, without entry, is not a search and not restricted by the Fourth Amendment.

 

But in adapting a principle first enunciated in the landmark Supreme Court case Katz vs. United States, a case involving remote eavesdropping of someone inside a phone booth, it found a warrant is required when the person has a "subjective expectation of privacy." That expectation existed for Kyllo because he was in his own home, an idea with deep roots in common law, the ruling found.

 

"To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment," it said.

 

Kyllo's attorney, Kenneth Lerner, made a similar argument in court papers: "Technology that exploits invisible, sub-sensory phenomena ultimately fails to respect the traditional boundaries of society, and therefore leaves the population defenseless against such surveillance."

 

I can't think of a judge in NKY that would hesitate to sign a warrant authorizing the use of Infrared. She bits whatever. Another hoop to jump through but not really an issue.

What could they possibly find that would be interesting to them with infrared that they were not already looking for and likely had a warrant for?

 

Basically, outside of trying to locate something or someone they are already looking for, police would have little use of the technology.

 

I didn't read the entire article and I'm still confused whether this happened in Kansas or Georgia? But I doubt police go around with infrared cameras trying to find Christmas trees to attack on a regular basis.

 

Let's say an officer was driving down the road using infrared and noticed a heat pocket in your celing. Odd, he says to himself. He then gets a warrant to search your house for weed.

 

The court has said that violates the Constitution. There is an expectation of privacy and technology cannot be used to get around that.

Let's say an officer was driving down the road using infrared and noticed a heat pocket in your celing. Odd, he says to himself. He then gets a warrant to search your house for weed.

 

The court has said that violates the Constitution. There is an expectation of privacy and technology cannot be used to get around that.

 

You think a judge will give a warrant just for a "Hot Pocket" with no other evidence?

 

Would it be any different than officers conducting visual surveillance with cameras or other technology on a subject and then getting probably cause for a search warrant?

Lie number two from cop block. They said it was misdemeanor warrants in lie 1. In lie 2, they mention an assault on a police officer charge and another drug related charge.

 

From a real article...

 

Alexius, who authorities say is a member of a Missouri prison gang called the Honkies, is wanted in that state on charges of failure to appear in court on a misdemeanor charge of assaulting a police officer and felony counts of attempted burglary, receiving stolen property, property damage, possession of controlled substance and resisting arrest.

 

So yeah...his "drug related charge" mentioned by cop block is actually attempted burglary, receiving stolen property, possession of a controlled substance and resisting arrest.

 

What? That can't be...that's almost completely different from the first story that was linked. You'd think with a title like, "The free thought project" they would be truthful. If you can't trust anti-police websites, who can you trust?

Are we going to ignore the fact that this article is complete garbage?

 

Anyone found a legit article saying they used infrared before obtaining a search warrant?

Are we going to ignore the fact that this article is complete garbage?

Yep...Police are always assumed Guilty and when a story (like this) or claimant (like the Hollywood actress) turns out to be full of it, story is dropped and the Google machine is kicked into high gear looking for the next anti-cop story!