NYPD to scan people on the street for guns

[J_Wales]

For those visiting the city of New York in the near future, I am offering for sale an under the shirt leather belt with the following steel die cast letters attached:

M A Y A L L S T A T I S T P I G S B U R N I N H E L L

PM me with your waist size.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

The last I heard, the supreme court ruled that if law enforcement wishes to use any technology that is not commonly used by the general public, they need a search warrant.

The example I am referring to involved a case in which law enforcement used a thermal imaging to check a house for heat that is known to be associated with cannabis grow houses. They saw that it had a high electric bill and drove by the house in a van with the equipment.

The court ruled that the use of the thermal imaging equipment violated the homeowners 4th amendment right and was a "search" because, without the use of the "special" equipment, law enforcement would have never known when they learned without entering the home. The court ruling is a little dated but, I fail to see how the use of this technology by NYPD is any different.

The difference is that it is not the home; the home is held to a higher standard under the 4th Amendment. The case you are referring to is Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001).

The Court held:

"We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman, 365 U.S. at 512, constitutes a search -- at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. On the basis of this criterion, the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search."

 

[Hiker1911]

Too funny! NYC may be a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to stay for long...

 

[GuyRelford]

The last I heard, the supreme court ruled that if law enforcement wishes to use any technology that is not commonly used by the general public, they need a search warrant.

The example I am referring to involved a case in which law enforcement used a thermal imaging to check a house for heat that is known to be associated with cannabis grow houses. They saw that it had a high electric bill and drove by the house in a van with the equipment.

The court ruled that the use of the thermal imaging equipment violated the homeowners 4th amendment right and was a "search" because, without the use of the "special" equipment, law enforcement would have never known when they learned without entering the home. The court ruling is a little dated but, I fail to see how the use of this technology by NYPD is any different.

I agree with you but one thing to anticipate: if this technology is deployed and is challenged in court, the NYPD will very likely argue that a person has a much different "expectation of privacy" in the home vs. walking around in public. That distinction would definitely factor into the question of whether the use of this technology is an "unreasonable search" for purposes of a 4th Amendment challenge.

But it seems to me that a person has a very legitimate and obvious "expectation of privacy" in everything that they have purposely covered with clothing on their body - whether that's their firearm or their genitalia - and the use of special technology to defeat that expectation of privacy should definitely be considered an "unreasonable search" in violation of the 4th Amendment - applying the logic of the case you mention.

Guy

 

[IndianaSigma]

If it only works a few feet away.....it's rather pointless.

I don't understand why people allow our government to take away our freedoms under the guise of fighting terrorism and keeping the general public safe. Sheeple are annoying.

 

[edporch]

NYPD looks to scan people on the street for guns, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly says - NY Daily News

Sounds like it's just a matter of time...and probably not long until we start to see it in other cities? I guess NY doesn't have to worry about the 4th amendment, since they already ignore the 2nd.

Just another example of the STAGGERING amount of effort some will exert to rob us of our rights to live in dignity as free people.

We make jokes about tinfoil hat people, will it one day be common for people to wear tinfoil lined clothing?

 

[Femme Assise]

I have this crazy idea that Americans are entitled to freedom... it seems that kind of thinking is slipping away more and more every day. This is a clear violation of our rights as private citizens - what price are we willing to pay for our security?

 

[dross]

Or Posse Comitatus. The article did say DoD was working on it with them.

NOTHING in that article indicates Posse Comitatus is being violated.

 

[finity]

NOTHING in that article indicates Posse Comitatus is being violated.

I think Posse Comitatus was just voided with the passage of NDAA.

I know this has nothing to do with the article but I thought I'd throw it in as a semi-thread related aside.

 

[thompal]

The difference is that it is not the home; the home is held to a higher standard under the 4th Amendment. The case you are referring to is Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 34 (2001).

The Court held:

"We think that obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman, 365 U.S. at 512, constitutes a search -- at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. On the basis of this criterion, the information obtained by the thermal imager in this case was the product of a search."

But isn't "your person" a Constitutionally protected area according to the 4th?

 

[thompal]

If it only works a few feet away.....it's rather pointless.

I don't understand why people allow our government to take away our freedoms under the guise of fighting terrorism and keeping the general public safe. Sheeple are annoying.

Might be time to drag out the old plans for a HERF gun.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

I played around with a microwave some years back; made up an antenna array and signal splitter and lit up an incandescent bulb in free space. Drew coronas off a screwdriver, warmed parts of myself up, that kind of thing. Probably can't have children anymore, but that may not be a bad thing.

 

[gunowner930]

How on God's Green Earth is this not a violation of the 4th?

Wht is the 4th? You aint got nothing to hide do ya?

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

“We want to use new technology to protect the public and police officers from illegal guns,” he said.

Hi, we're form the government and we're here to help.

 

[GuyRelford]

"We want to use new technology to protect the public and police officers from illegal guns," he said.

That's the really cool part of this technology - it will only detect illegal guns!! Cool!! Or maybe the illegal guns will glow red, and legal guns will glow green! Awesome!

 

[IndianaSigma]

That's the really cool part of this technology - it will only detect illegal guns!! Cool!! Or maybe the illegal guns will glow red, and legal guns will glow green! Awesome!

^^

+1

 

[Joseph]

Wow, I am glad I am a Hoosier, we have issues sure but that is insane.

 

[a.bentonab]

Doesn't NY offer some form of LTCH? How many plain clothes police officers are walking the streets at any given time? I think they may be biting off more than they can chew here. Of all the guns they detect, I would imagine a rather small percentage would be illegal ones. The rest would just be wsted resources. Just imagine the ratio in IN! At this first whisper of this technology being tested in the Hoosier state I would smell a concealed carry march.

You know, the implementation of this device might not be a terrible thing. It just might let the people in charge realize that not all people carrying guns are bad. And that it would be counterproductive to stop people based solely on that fact.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Doesn't NY offer some form of LTCH? How many plain clothes police officers are walking the streets at any given time? I think they may be biting off more than they can chew here. Of all the guns they detect, I would imagine a rather small percentage would be illegal ones. The rest would just be wsted resources. Just imagine the ratio in IN! At this first whisper of this technology being tested in the Hoosier state I would smell a concealed carry march.

You know, the implementation of this device might not be a terrible thing. It just might let the people in charge realize that not all people carrying guns are bad. And that it would be counterproductive to stop people based solely on that fact.

NY State issues more permits than IN does, but those are invalid in NYC, which has its own permit. Yes, they have one. It's "may issue" at both the city and state level, and very exclusive, at least the city one is.

Here's the application for a NYC "carry" permit. Do note that none of them except the "Special" one allows for carry outside of one's business.
http://home2.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/HandGunLicenseApplicationFormsComplete.pdf

Wanna guess which one they issue least often?

So basically, yeah, if they see anyone carrying in NYC, they're either a cop or a criminal, with so few exceptions as to be unworthy of mention.

Everyone else they see is either a victim or waiting to become one.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Armed-N-Ready]

I still have hopes for global warming to solve this problem.

If the oceans rise enough NY and CA will be taken care of for us. The laws of nature take care of the weak.