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?

 

Well since it went to the SCOTUS one obviously did.

 

Can a camera detect heat pockets? That was the issue. Cameras are OK by the courts. This technology is not.

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?

 

My comments are directed towards the question posed about infrared. I haven't looked into this particular case.

 

My comments are directed towards the question posed about infrared. I haven't looked into this particular case.

 

Most...er...a lot of people don't question the facts when the police are accused.

Most...er...a lot of people don't question the facts when the police are accused.

 

Not sure what that means in regard to my post about infrared.

Well since it went to the SCOTUS one obviously did.

 

Can a camera detect heat pockets? That was the issue. Cameras are OK by the courts. This technology is not.

You OK with the police flying a drone overhead to surveil a property?

Yes Infra-Red Cameras can detect heat.

FLIR used by police helicopters can detect heat, some high tech night vision scopes can detect heat.

 

FLIR used by helicopters has saved many officers lives as it has been able to pinpoint suspects that were laying in wait for officers that were searching for them. Bigger cities use it probably every single night when looking for people that have fled the police or the scene of a crime.

You OK with the police flying a drone overhead to surveil a property?

Yes Infra-Red Cameras can detect heat.

FLIR used by police helicopters can detect heat, some high tech night vision scopes can detect heat.

 

FLIR used by helicopters has saved many officers lives as it has been able to pinpoint suspects that were laying in wait for officers that were searching for them. Bigger cities use it probably every single night when looking for people that have fled the police or the scene of a crime.

 

Let me clear. I fully GET the value of infrared in helping officers. All for it. Helps find suspects on the run. Helps find a gun that was ditched. All good.

 

Just can't use it to "look" into someone's house.

Let me clear. I fully GET the value of infrared in helping officers. All for it. Helps find suspects on the run. Helps find a gun that was ditched. All good.

 

Just can't use it to "look" into someone's house.

 

Gotcha...

 

Well you can't "Look" without a prior warrant!

Gotcha...

 

Well you can't "Look" without a prior warrant!

 

Correct. And you can't use the infrared for the warrant. That's the only point I have tried to make in this thread.

 

Correct. And you can't use the infrared for the warrant. That's the only point I have tried to make in this thread.

 

No one has argued that, have they?

 

I've still not seen anything reliable saying they used infrared in the first place.

No one has argued that, have they?

 

I've still not seen anything reliable saying they used infrared in the first place.

 

Question was asked in post 1.

I know it's minor, but it doesn't surprise me that something from The free thought project can't even figure out which state this happened in. Kansas or Georgia?

 

If they would have read a real article before writing this non sense, they would have discovered it was in Kansas.

Can we get a version of this story that doesn't come from cop block aka the free thought project? I couldn't get past the first sentence.

 

Why is garbage writing like this considered news by anyone? That web site (I'm not saying they did it in this case) literally lies about police and ignores certain facts to generate stories that are anti police.

 

If one isn't already posted by time I get to my PC I'll look for one.

Most...er...a lot of people don't question the facts when the police are accused.

 

But you, at least in this case, do, which is very helpful. I seriously was only looking at the question about infrared, but you also looked into the article, which was also helpful. I too don't like some of the people from those cop block sites who bate the LEO. MANY LEO's really do a fantastic job at holding back. I think that some, not many, of those from these sites may have good intentions, but the majority are just jerks.

 

But you, at least in this case, do, which is very helpful. I seriously was only looking at the question about infrared, but you also looked into the article, which was also helpful. I too don't like some of the people from those cop block sites who bate the LEO. MANY LEO's really do a fantastic job at holding back. I think that some, not many, of those from these sites may have good intentions, but the majority are just jerks.

 

No one affiliated with cop block has good intentions. Anyone who supports that site, supports a site that blatantly lies to its readers. Unfortunately there are a bunch of sheep who read it and do no research for themselves.

 

That site is not about police accountability.

If the question of this thread was about the proper use of infrared, then shouldn't the title of the thread at least hint at that? Or did you use the title of the article because you knew it would get more views?