View Full Version : Do the roving "full body scan" vans violate the 4th Amendment?
What's your opinion? Does this constitute a violation of the 4th Amendment? Orwellian? What's your opinion?
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
Also, please state your reason for the way in which you're voting.
Orwellian to be sure. Scary as hell and I can only hope these things are in a lot of "accidents" I understand the fear of terrorist attacks and violence. But I would rather have the threat of attack than the outright intrusive police state we are heading towards. I am a level headed person and take pride in that. But things like this make me want to do damage.
Reading the comments is like a sad commentary on the state of our population. I've often wondered if popular shows advocating "ends justify the means", such as 24, numb people to the attacks on civil liberties.
One poster mentioned that the Supreme Court already ruled on imaging towards private homes from public streets as violating the 4th. If that is true, it seems reasonable that this van would also be unreasonable, if allowed out on the streets.
arizonaranchman
08-26-10, 23:14
Deleted
I agree. It's total BS the level of intrusiveness that has entered out lives.
I'm far more concerned about the out of control Fed Govt we have than any terrorist or foreign nation. No comparison to the evil the government can do to you when it gets out of control.
Belmont31R
08-26-10, 23:18
The same rules that apply to a physical search should also apply to an electronic search.
Just like they can't scan your house they should not be able to scan you or your car without the present "physical" standards applying, too.
And yeah "Big Brother" is here. LEO/GOV are going to be using any technological advantage they can.
i'd say of course it's a violation.. the standard used by SCOTUS is whether or not the thing being searched is readily available to public viewing. since the contents of your pockets, your telephone conversations, what you have/do in your house, etc, etc, are all considered not-public, it simply doesn't matter what method is used.
parishioner
08-26-10, 23:37
Well it seems government agencies have completely bypassed the search warrant process and have granted themselves judicial authority. I don't see the problem.
By the way, any property that's in public view can pretty much be searched with out a warrant according to the ninth circus.
Also it's "legal" to use thermal imaging etc to look through your property with out a warrant, as it's already done in many LE investigations such as finding pot growers. Same as watching power bills and getting a warrant simply because you use more power than the norm, the idea that maybe you fix cars as a hobby or something doesn't matter, because your guilt is assumed before your innocents is ever considered. And who's business is it how much power you use as long as you pay the f'n bill.
So when technology gets to the point where one can see every corner of a room in your house from the sidewalk will the person need a warrant? Within 15-20 years this will be possible with even the most rural LE agencies.
Like it or not, our country is going down hill fast. Look at the tax system, eventually through taxation, 100% of every dollar will find it's way back to the government, only to have a loan taken out against it to **** up our economy by introducing more money into circulation to help pay for stupid ass pork.
I'd be all for a public health system, if it was for citizens of our country, and everyone payed equally. I sound like a "commie" saying it, but I'm all for helping my countryman, but I don't trust my government's ethics as far as I can piss, the writing of the current health bill proves this, they're a bunch of corrupt assholes, who could care less about helping others.
Back onto the 4th :p, the 4th doesn't exist any longer, just look at all the recent court rulings. The vast majority dealing with the 4th through out the right of the citizen to have privacy from the government.
Frogs in a pot, that's all we are.
By the way, any property that's in public view can pretty much be searched with out a warrant according to the ninth circus.
Also it's "legal" to use thermal imaging etc to look through your property with out a warrant, as it's already done in many LE investigations such as finding pot growers.
i'm about 98% sure SCOTUS ruled that thermal imaging is not legal, without a warrant. somebody correct me if im wrong.
and as far as watching power bills- they still have to have a warrant, if the power company won't voluntarily give them the data. if the power company volunteers the bills, no warrant is needed to begin with.
i'm about 98% sure SCOTUS ruled that thermal imaging is not legal, without a warrant. somebody correct me if im wrong.
and as far as watching power bills- they still have to have a warrant, if the power company won't voluntarily give them the data. if the power company volunteers the bills, no warrant is needed to begin with.
They use thermal imaging all the time in northern California, do they get 1,000's of warrants? I recall a bust of a grower who had setup his grow house off the grid using solar power, I believe his exhaust fans from his basement gave him off, and this was after the SOTUS said it was unconstitutional. By the way, his property was sold for a steal :) Wish I had the money to buy it, it was a gorgeous place.
I understand if it's public land it's public land, but they don't discriminate public versus private.
I know the ruling you're talking about, but it doesn't change the fact that thermal is still used with out warrants as a tool, spin shit enough ways and it becomes legal, lawyers do it all the time. And with the latest bullshit from the ninth, I see the previous decision being challenged in the near future, and last time it lost by one vote.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1685250/the-government-can-now-track-you-sans-warrant-via-gps
And no I don't smoke pot, or do any other drugs, or drink. I live a clean lifestyle, but respect the rights of others to do as they wish with their lives. If some one wants to get stoned, fine do it in your home, go running around getting high, they should lock your ass up, because now it's a public disturbance and if you're driving etc, you're now a danger to others.
Any how, every year we lose a little more freedom, it's been going on since 1861.
The writer of the article has a both a poor understanding of the technology and of the Constitutional Issues involved. His use of stock images does not help as he mixes multiple technologies. The vehicles are enormous and obvious in what they are and what they do. I frequently take seized vehicles to the local VACIS van (really a huge semi truck) to have cars imaged for hidden compartments or concealed contraband. The fastest the process has taken is 20 minutes. These vans cannot roll down the street and image people and cars moving around. Yes, can I get one to your house in the middle of the night to image your car? You bet, but the whole damn neighborhood is going to know what is going on. I recommend that people read up on their reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) rights and warrant exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. For instance you have little REP at the border (in or out) and a warrant is not required to search you. Having technology like VACIS speeds the flow of commerce while allowing contraband to be interdicted. Oh, and I am all for it.
BK, the case you are looking for is U.S. v Kyllo. SCOTUS ruled that the targeted thermal imaging of a residence requires a warrant, however, this does not extend to commercial structures, homes used for a commercial enterprise (think about this one), or public lands.
The vehicles are enormous and obvious in what they are and what they do. I frequently take seized vehicles to the local VACIS van (really a huge semi truck) to have cars imaged for hidden compartments or concealed contraband. The fastest the process has taken is 20 minutes.
http://www.as-e.com/products_solutions/zbv.asp
That looks quite a bit smaller than you've described. I don't know the capability of the vans as far as how quickly they work, but their marketing site talks about rapid imaging and analysis for their Z-Backscatter Technology.
Is this VACIS truck a product of AS&E or another vendor? Maybe it isn't an apples to apples comparison?
Edit: AS&E says their van is capable of imagine vehicles while driving alongside them. If the basis of your argument is that everyone will know that scanning is taking place, does your stance change now that technology has been developed that doesn't let everyone know what is going on?
The writer of the article has a both a poor understanding of the technology... The vehicles are enormous and obvious in what they are and what they do. I frequently take seized vehicles to the local VACIS van (really a huge semi truck) to have cars imaged for hidden compartments or concealed contraband. The fastest the process has taken is 20 minutes. These vans cannot roll down the street and image people and cars moving around.
What you're stating and what the website that's linked above show contradict one another.
High level of maneuverability with high-speed "drive-by" mode and covert screening capability...
low-cost, extremely maneuverable screening system built into a commercially available delivery van...
The system's unique "drive-by" capability allows one or two operators to conduct X-ray imaging of suspect vehicles and objects while the ZBV drives past...
while maintaining low-profile operation. The system is unobtrusive, as it maintains the outward appearance of an ordinary van...
I'm not for it for a myriad of reasons.
It gets even better... http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
Our forefathers would hang their hands in shame at what's happening to this country... and then they'd start hanging the people responsible for turning it into what it's becoming.
Reading the comments section, I saw this:
Solution to Child Abduction/Kidnapping. When this happens a mandatory sweep of ALL homes, and vehicles in the area!!!!
Whatever privacy concerns there area… only deploy in cases of child kidnapping, abductions etc. Let the police do it right away. This would be awesome!! Get the authority post haste if need be.
And thought, :suicide2: What a wonderful solution unless you happen to have a child of like age or size. I thought this comment was illustrative of the larger problem with the use of this technology in this manner. Who's going to pay for my front door and the therapy my child will no doubt need. When the police impound my car and break into my trunk looking for the "bomb" they thought they saw & instead find perfectly legal reloading supplies . . . who is going to pay my impound fee, who is going to fix my trunk lid, etc? When I get thrown on the ground or felony stopped for carrying a perfectly legal handgun, completely concealed to folks lacking x-ray vision . . . who's going to repair the damage? My concern in short is, this technology used in the manner illustrated will have too high a cost in terms of innocent people's rights being violated over false positives. Without a heavy component of behavioral anlysis hopefully preceeding use of the van, it seems far more likely to cause more damage in the incidental false positive searches than it would stop.
CarlosDJackal
08-27-10, 11:14
I voted no because it's not something that you have to do unless you're flying. It would only be a violation of the 4th Amendment if (a) It was conducted in a public place; and (b) They made it mandatory for everyone - even for those who were not flying or trying to gain access to a particular part of an Airport.
Is it intrusive? Damn right!! There is a reason why I haven't been on a plane since January of 2008. I choose to drive rather than subject myself to the BS that goes with flying. JM2CW.
I voted no because it's not something that you have to do unless you're flying. It would only be a violation of the 4th Amendment if (a) It was conducted in a public place; and (b) They made it mandatory for everyone - even for those who were not flying or trying to gain access to a particular part of an Airport.
Did you read the poll? It has nothing to do with airport scans, but mobile scanning vans.
This has nothing to do with flying or a plane.
I voted no because it's not something that you have to do unless you're flying. It would only be a violation of the 4th Amendment if (a) It was conducted in a public place; and (b) They made it mandatory for everyone - even for those who were not flying or trying to gain access to a particular part of an Airport.
Is it intrusive? Damn right!! There is a reason why I haven't been on a plane since January of 2008. I choose to drive rather than subject myself to the BS that goes with flying. JM2CW.
woodandsteel
08-27-10, 13:32
To me, it's a violation. The scanning is arbitrary and can be done even without the knowledge of the person being scanned.
The scanning should be held to a higher standard than that of a Terry Frisk, in my opinion.
Moose-Knuckle
08-27-10, 17:01
For every calender year the MIC gains about 44.5 years in it's technological advances. We're far beyond "big brother" boys and girls.
The smaller vans can give a very basic image of an obvious item that is large, dense, carbon, etc. by driving by slowly at 3-4mph but small things/packages concealed in voids require the use of the larger stationary VACIS.
We have a saying, "right to be; right to see", or as someone mentioned above, right to put a GPS tracker under your car in your driveway (no REP in either place, either in the driveway or under your car). Remember, there is no REP in public places or publicly accessible places.
Again, read up on REP. Here is a good start,
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_fields_doctrine
The writer of the article has a both a poor understanding of the technology and of the Constitutional Issues involved. His use of stock images does not help as he mixes multiple technologies. The vehicles are enormous and obvious in what they are and what they do. I frequently take seized vehicles to the local VACIS van (really a huge semi truck) to have cars imaged for hidden compartments or concealed contraband. The fastest the process has taken is 20 minutes. These vans cannot roll down the street and image people and cars moving around. Yes, can I get one to your house in the middle of the night to image your car? You bet, but the whole damn neighborhood is going to know what is going on. I recommend that people read up on their reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) rights and warrant exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. For instance you have little REP at the border (in or out) and a warrant is not required to search you. Having technology like VACIS speeds the flow of commerce while allowing contraband to be interdicted. Oh, and I am all for it.
...
The smaller vans can give a very basic image of an obvious item that is large, dense, carbon, etc. by driving by slowly at 3-4mph but small things/packages concealed in voids require the use of the larger stationary VACIS.
We have a saying, "right to be; right to see", or as someone mentioned above, right to put a GPS tracker under your car in your driveway (no REP in either place, either in the driveway or under your car). Remember, there is no REP in public places or publicly accessible places.
Again, read up on REP. Here is a good start,
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtilage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_fields_doctrine
There is no right to be inside of someone's car.
Even if the technology isn't good enough as you claim (yet) to be cruising down the road at 65mph and be able to tell if the driver is wearing boxers or briefs, it obviously will be in the not-too-distant future. Peering inside of cars driving down the road is unreasonable.
I would say it depends on what they use the evidence for. If they are only using the vans to prevent an attack, I say go for it. But if they use the vans to collect evidence and prosecute someone, then no that's not right and should be considered unconstitutional.
Hoss356 sent this to me in a PM and I think he has a good point.
I do find it pathetic that someones developed this technology to spy into our cars but not scan the road ahead for IED's in the soil? To me I don't see this technology being far off from that just that it's focused in the wrong direction.
I would say it depends on what they use the evidence for. If they are only using the vans to prevent an attack, I say go for it. But if they use the vans to collect evidence and prosecute someone, then no that's not right and should be considered unconstitutional.
I'm not sure how much I trust the government to make and abide by that distinction.
I would say it depends on what they use the evidence for. If they are only using the vans to prevent an attack, I say go for it. But if they use the vans to collect evidence and prosecute someone, then no that's not right and should be considered unconstitutional.
So you only consider privacy when it comes to prosecution? If a person of authority wished to enter your home and look through your shit it would be okay as long as they don't prosecute you for what they find?
What ever happened to basic privacy, who give a shit if it's used for legal reasons or not, why shouldn't I have privacy just to lead a private life.
Moose-Knuckle
08-28-10, 17:36
What ever happened to basic privacy,
That's a thing of the past, as far back as the 1970's satellites were devoloped that could read the name of the manufacturer of a golf ball on the surface of the Earth from orbit. A vast majority of the information "collected" could never be admissible in a court of law due to the way inwhich it was obtained.
I am proposing we add an amendment to the constitution to prevent things like this. I suggest the following text, as it is very clear and all but impossible to misinterpret.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So you only consider privacy when it comes to prosecution? If a person of authority wished to enter your home and look through your shit it would be okay as long as they don't prosecute you for what they find?
What ever happened to basic privacy, who give a shit if it's used for legal reasons or not, why shouldn't I have privacy just to lead a private life.
Yeah I guess you have a point there. Maybe I'll go out and line my car with lead foil..
Yes this is a huge violation of 4A, and strikingly ludicrous. Not that our Govt. gives a shit about any Amendment rights, they errode them whenever they see the chance to sham us into thinking they are protecting us by stripping our rights.
It is so crazy and scary in this orwellian world we live in. With telescreens and all. If only we made a stand when we still had a chance. Technology is stifling our ability to regain a semblance of our once enjoyed liberty, and we watch the very principles our country was founded on and fought for slide away more and more each day; in some cases just flushed down the toilet without cause. It is getting very unbalanced and downright insane.
Screw the roving vans, it is un-American, cowardly, invasive and damaging to us as a whole.
The whole "give up your rights so we can protect you from those who wish to infringe upon them" speal/way of dealing with the world is getting old quick and so backwards it makes me sick to my stomach and angry as all hell.
Books like 1984, brave new world, animal farm, etc. were meant to be warning sigsn to wake us up, make us think, and not allow those things to happen wihtout a fight; they were not meant to be outlines of our future for Governments to follow.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.