The federal court upheld the entry, search and seizure of the guns on facts independent of the Range-R information so it didn’t resolve the Fourth Amendment questions raised by the use of such a device. The Deputy Marshal testified he used a Range-R to detect someone was inside the house. That search discovered guns and resulted in additional charges. At issue on appeal was the lawfulness of their entry into a home to make the arrest and their subsequent search therein without a search warrant. The Marshals had an arrest warrant for Steven Denson for parole violations on an armed robbery conviction. Rest assured, the proverbial cat is out of the bag. The case in which the Deputy Marshal testified resulted in a federal appeals court opinion that was published on December 30, 2014. That appears to have sparked the media’s attention. Marshal testified in court about using the Range-R. The manufacturer of a model called Range-R - apparently not bound by any non-disclosure agreement - provided an estimate of the number of law enforcement agencies that had purchased the devices and the number sold. The Marshals Service’s purchases of the devices were documented in federal contract records. USA Today characterized police use of the motion detection technology as “secret.” To the media, that could mean police didn’t issue a press release.Īccording to the article, federal officials discussed how the device could be critical for keeping officers safe if they need to storm buildings or rescue hostages. Secret is deciding to keep something hidden out of fear or shame. Examples are changing clothes, an early pregnancy, a new relationship. Private is deciding to withhold something from public view for any number of acceptable reasons. There’s a difference between secret and private. The technology has significant Fourth Amendment ramifications.
The media is reporting that law enforcement agencies have kept their use of this technology “secret.” 2. Looking like a fancy stud-finder, the device uses radio waves and the display shows whether it detects motion as slight as human breathing on the other side of a wall and, if so, how far away it is.īut commenters who focus on how the media is overhyping the technology miss two pressing points:ġ. The handheld devices aren’t like Superman’s X-ray vision that let him see through clothes and barriers. “Police radar can ‘see’ inside homes,” trumpeted a recent USA Today headline.
0 kommentar(er)
