Dateline London:
"A British company has developed a camera that can detect weapons, drugs or explosives hidden under people's clothes from up to 25 meters away in what could be a breakthrough for the security industry . . ."
"The high-powered camera can detect hidden objects from up to 80 feet away and is effective even when people are moving. It does not reveal physical body details and the screening is harmless, the company says."
Truly fascinating technology. The technology works on the basis that all people and objects emit low levels of electromagnetic radiation. Terahertz rays lie somewhere between infrared and microwaves on the electromagnetic spectrum and travel through clouds and walls.
But could this device ever be deployed surreptitiously to see what law-abiding people are carrying as they innocently walk a city street? I would love to hear from any attorneys on their views regarding "unlawful search" and this new gizmo.
Open carry, anyone?
10 March 2008
Interesting New Technology; Implications For Lawful Carry?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
4th Amendment jurisprudence has usually had a stark divide when technology crosses a line between "commonly available to the public" and "not." For example, virtually any form of available photo equipment, no matter how advanced, will constitute an illegal search, because whatever viewed is in "plain sight" to equipment readily available (even if expensive).
In contrast, the SC has held (US v. Kyllo) use of thermographic imaging equipment, used to detect excessive heat generated by grow lights at drug houses, are "searches" and require a warrant.
My supposition would be that this new gizmo would constitute a search if used by the government (but remember, the 4th Amendment only constrains the government, not private parties), at least until it is available at Radio Shack, then I would guess our Terra-whatevers would be fair game!
Disclaimer: Not legal advice, and I did not even read the underlying article, only based my quick $.02 on the blog post.
Interesting....thank you, A!
Great - I just re-read my comment, and with respect to the photo equipment, it says exactly the WRONG thing. Readily available photo (and other) equipment = NOT a search, and no 4A violation. Sorry about that - I really am more careful in my lawyer-type job! ;)
So if I'm walking down the street -- in plain sight -- and the camera is in plain sight, its fair game? Like a red-light camera? Or can the camera be hidden? Thanks for clarifying this for all, as best you can!
Post a Comment