SRFS
New Member
I'm sure if they wanted to they could get there warrant fast and be in the door before you have had a chance to get the equipment down. If you get what I mean
Question about helicopters using thermal imaging
Suntana
Well-Known Member
What part of a Canada Weaslcracker? That's such bullshit, next year it will be legalized but I'll bet they toughen the laws on illegal grows. I'd rather things be left alone, just quit throwing people in F'N jail, decriminalize the shit. Grass is never going to go away, so back off already!
Happy growing!
BC.
This was a few years back but I'm not sure it would be any different today, or next year.
Take an anonymous snitch report, a small town police dept with quite a few members in training being shuffled through, add the spice of adventure and a 'big bust' and you get a lot of tax dollars wasted.
This was a few years back but I'm not sure it would be any different today, or next year.
Take an anonymous snitch report, a small town police dept with quite a few members in training being shuffled through, add the spice of adventure and a 'big bust' and you get a lot of tax dollars wasted.
Suntana
Well-Known Member
Ya I'm in B.C. as well and in the nearest town to me I hear about busts all the time, but dispensaries are popping up all over in B.C. I think the only thing anyone can do is get legal, play along.
If you're worried about overhead thermal imaging get a Gorilla Grow Tent, those things have a "Infrared Blocking Roof Insertion." Not sure if any other tents have that feature.
handjive4mota
New Member
hey there johnboy1, do what is best for your situation. Will all the kibitzers here do your time for you if you get caught?
You really believe they would take your place if you got busted don't you. We all have to live with the person in our head,
if that mf'er aint happy what is the use? keep the little mf'er in your head happy.
You really believe they would take your place if you got busted don't you. We all have to live with the person in our head,
if that mf'er aint happy what is the use? keep the little mf'er in your head happy.
SRFS
New Member
Still out there johnboy1
- Thread starter
- #28
Aye, There was a stabbing in the park behind my apartments! So it kind of makes sense why they were walking up and down my street with dogs and parked outside They'd found a knife and a hammer near there so i think they we're possibly trying to get a scent of that
God knows!
Will be starting back up soon hopefully, No cutting down this time!;D
Bit gutted i killed my babys now!
God knows!
Will be starting back up soon hopefully, No cutting down this time!;D
Bit gutted i killed my babys now!
SRFS
New Member
Lol always the way mate can't be to careful
Big answer - NoThey are not even looking your way, this is just prohibition paranoia.
Keep in mind the fact that... how to put it inoffensively? Hmm... The OP is taking about a country where they've gone with the strategy of trading privacy for security (shame they pooched it by then allowing thousands and thousands of militant extremists in who aren't real worried about things like firearm prohibition because they get theirs from the same entities that supply them with explosives :rolleyes3 ) . They have video cameras about every 17 inches in most public spaces. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, lol, but they have a remarkable amount of video surveillance there.
I used to read a free cannabis publication that was based out of Europe, and every issue contained reports on arrests. Some of them gave me the strong impression that, in the UK, if a thing could possibly be seen, it was considered to be fair game in terms of evidence. And while I agree that they would find it to be a poor use of funds to send a helicopter up solely to look for small-time grows... Well, it's like the guy that goes deep-sea fishing for a 700-pound monster fish. If he pulls in a couple of 85-pounders, he'll probably eat those too. If the crew in the helicopter see what appears to be a grow, they'll probably mention it. They're like freebies, lol. Most people wouldn't shoot a cop anyway, but hardly anyone would over a few plants. Probably safer than pulling over an unknown driver late at night. So why would they NOT make note of it?
Aside from that... You stated that your lighting is only a Mars II 900. Those little things only consume 353 or 363 watts, something like that (the "900" is basically just a number used to catch the attention of the newbies :rolleyes3 ) . If 363 watts, it's only producing approximately 1,238.919 BTU per hour. The last desktop computer that I owned produced that much heat or even a little more (and it was running 24 hours per day for about four years) . You're far more likely to get pinched for escaping smell (if you don't have a carbon filter, or have air leaks), because you were observed doing something suspicious, or because you just couldn't resist the temptation to tell ONE person and they either had the same uncontrollable urge or wanted a get out of jail free card. Insulate the tent (relatively easy - I'd go with rigid foam insulation of some sort and just box it in) and the ductwork if you're especially paranoid. Move it away from the window (FFS!) so that if any LEO do happen to "glance your way" with FLIR they won't see a hot telephone call box shape on their screen. Keep your carbon filter in good nick, stop any air leaks, and adjust your exhaust fan so that there is a slight negative pressure in the tent. Tell NO ONE(!!!) what you are doing.
Yeah, from what I've read it's sort of a case of "the first one's free - but then it'll cost ya" in that probation becomes significantly less likely when one has a previous record (especially if for the same types of offenses).
I live in the United States, so I only know this statement to be true for my country (but I would be surprised if Great Britain isn't the same way): If one is on probation and subsequently gets convicted of a crime, one suddenly finds that the probation has been rescinded and he/she is now subject to jail time for the original conviction, in addition to whatever punishment he/she gets for the new one. So - at least if this situation occurred here - you could, in theory, end up in jail even if you only got a fine for a new offense.
If I was on probation, I wouldn't even think about growing cannabis until the probation was over. It's... Well, it's a question of risk versus reward, lol. I cannot go to jail because my elderly/infirm mother depends on me, and because my butthole is exit-only
.Yeah... I bet you'd feel pretty stupid. Like the guy I read about a couple years ago who was serving time for a non-violent crime at a minimum security facility. It was the kind of place where you could pretty much just decide you wanted to leave and do so - and he did, lol. Whatever it was, he had served around three years with 91 days left on his sentence, but he decided to leave early. When they caught him, he ended up serving considerably more time and it wasn't at "Club Fed," it was at a much more secure prison... the kind of place where they draw a set of t!ts on the backs of the scrawny guys, and this one looked like he weighed 130 pounds soaking wet - so I hope whatever he did in the two or three weeks before they caught him was really important.
You could always do a run of fruit/vegetable/herb plants, lol. Maybe some orchids and fancy rare flowers. Get things into full-scale (food?) production mode, maybe even borrow an extra light or two. Then go find a pay phone that isn't under a video camera and call in an anonymous tip ("It's 04:00 and the light shining around the blinds looks like the sun man, the <BLEEPing> SUN! And there's some really weird smells coming from there, it smells like a boutique or something, IDK, I think the guy must be growing that <BLEEP> dope."), then run back home and wait for the show to begin... I'm not saying you should turn a situation like that into a lawsuit or anything - but if it happened to be me, and I'd just (successfully) pulled a stunt like that, I'd be screaming at everyone in sight - and most definitely to every news journalist - about the harassment you've been subjected to. I can just see the headlines now, lofl: Rare Orchid Grower Gets RAIDED by the Drugs Police! Another Innocent VICTIM of the War on Drugs! Et cetera.
Just a thought.
I feel for you. I lived in an apartment, once. It was in a commercial building (couple of stores). One Sunday morning I got the *ss-chewing of my life from a K-9 officer. The short version was "You're going to have to do something about the smell, move, quit growing your pot... or I'm going to have to come round real soon and bust you." There was luck in that, of course. But also the fact that the guy knew who I was and that I wasn't a "criminal type" (even though I was obviously breaking a law - or two, lol). I get the feeling that, if I lived on your street, that day would have been somewhat worse....
I saw on a police TV show in the UK they were looking for grows with the thermal camera, they noticed a small hot square in a loft so they went round to bust the grower, there was no mention of if they knocked on the door or smashed it down but it turned out that the person who lived there hadn't put the loft hatch back and there were no plants, so judging by the size they must have been trying to bust a 1 plant grower.
GlaucomaMeds
Well-Known Member
Im in S.W. too johnboy, dont even sweat, they fly over me all the time. I doubt they can even be bothered for a tiny personal operation. Some guy from Newport just got 7yrs for a £1.6 Million Grow, I think thats more what they are after.
It's a shame HMG didn't simply fine him the same amount that a "legitimate" business would have paid in tax for such an amount.
Jungalist30
New Member
There is a HRT Mylar which was purposely designed to stop any thermo imaging technology from being able to pick up excessive heat sources, in fact if you even test its purpose by using a IR thermometer and hanging the HRT Mylar in front of a hps. It does work but it's expensive to buy, but if your worried about being caught by the old bill then it's an investment worth taking right ?.
WoundedKnee
New Member
Bit of info for you mate, if your grow set up is in house, away from windows, the FLIR system cannot see through bricks, keep your tent away from windows that a FLIR system can spot the heat from grow. I would suggest using a CFL light or LED's, they produce a lot less heat. Put your exhaust vent - with carbon filter, thats essential, near an open window, try to make the exhaust duct as long as possible to allow any hot air to disapate. Another thing to look out for is a simple way to tell what a Police Dog is used for. If it has a long lead (very long horse type set up) and is a German Shepard, its a dog for hunting down a fugitive. A drug detection dog is kept on a short lead and is most often either a Labrador or Spaniel type dog. There are two types of dog, the one you saw is a dog for catching a fugitive. Going outside and making a yourself visible is a bad idea, thats a great way to have a curious copper pop up and ask you a few questions. Just avoid them. Good luck with your new grow. Just move it away from windows mate.
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
They need a Warrant to do Thermal Imaging now
Kyllo v. United States,533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Florida v. Jardines,569 U.S. ___ (2013)
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)
Call your Congress person and tell them you want to know what your tax Dollars are paying for the FBI to do
202-224-3121
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
The "Intelligence Community" uses more Cryptography and Dark Web Applications than anyone in the World, that is why they didn't care what Hillary was doing, they do the same thing all the time.
They used to put like a News Paper or something at your house, with a Clock on the third page with the Hands pointing to the time you were supposed to go sit on the Bench.
Now they use the same Apps they try to tell you not to use because they are for ISIS.
These are articles about the NSA's Program called PRISM, where they use Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc servers to collect information about you:
Here’s everything we know about PRISM to date - The Washington Post
PRISM (surveillance program) - Wikipedia
FBI quietly changes its privacy rules for accessing NSA data on Americans | US news | The Guardian
A Judge Just Admitted The Existence Of The NSA’s PRISM Program - Vocativ
NSA PRISM
If you want to submit a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act request in order to get record from the NSA about you) here is how to do that. The Privacy Act Request is the Normal one to use (the 3rd one here) but you can file both. The top is a sample letter so that you have a template.
Sample FOIA Request Letters | National Freedom of Information Coalition
Submit a FOIA Request
Submit a Privacy Act Request
This is how to file a Consumer Complaint about any Company that has given away your information, this must be filed before a lawsuit.
Filing a Consumer Complaint | USAGov
EPCA (Privacy Act)
EPIC - Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
Privacy Act of 1974
"Individuals who violate ECPA face up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000. Victims are also entitled to bring civil suits and recover actual damages, in addition to punitive damages and attorney's fees, for violations."
FISA (Foreign Surveillance law where the FISA courts come from)
[USC10] 50 USC Ch. 36: FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
Text of H.R. 6304 (110th): FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us
Applications of the Privacy Act
Federal Laws on Spousal Spying and the ECPA
JURIST -
Agencies Behaving Badly: Government Surveillance and Privacy Act Violations
42 U.S. Code § 1983 (Lawsuit for Violation of Rights)
18 U.S. Code § 242 (Criminal Charges for Government Officers using their status to infringe on personal Rights)
28 USC § 1442 (Bringing a Lawsuit against Government Officers)
Title II Rule 3 & 5 (Procedure for Suing Government Agencies)
Flast V Cohen (You can sue the Government for misuse of tax funds)
Katz V United States (Reasonable expectation of Privacy)
United States V United States District Court (Wiretapping)
Riley V California (Cell Phone Records)
United States V Guest (Protection from Government Conspiracies)
Watkins V United States (Congress' Power is not Unlimited)
Buckley V Fitzsimmons (No Immunity for Illegal investigations)
Hanrahan V Hampton (Example of an Extensive Government Conspiracy hashed out in Court for 20 years)
Include facts and damages in your claim. Your administrative claim must include the exact amount of money damages you are claiming, as well as enough facts about your case to allow the federal agency to investigate the merits of your claim. Using a SF 95 form will help ensure that you've included all of the necessary information.
The agency has six months to respond. Once your claim is submitted, the federal agency has six months to rule on it. In some cases, the federal agency may "admit" your claim (that is, agree that your claim is valid) and agree to pay you some or all of the money damages you demanded, and you may not need to go to court.
You then have six months to file a lawsuit. If the federal agency rejects your claim or refuses to pay all the money damages you demanded, you have six months from the date on which the decision is mailed to you to file a lawsuit. Again, file your lawsuit as soon as possible after receiving this decision to avoid any chance of having your lawsuit dismissed as untimely.
You don't have to sue until the agency rules on your claim. If the federal agency fails to rule on your administrative claim within six months, you have the choice of either awaiting the agency's decision or going ahead with your lawsuit. As long as the federal agency is still considering your claim, there is no time limit for you to file a law suit in federal court; the six-month time limit only begins to run once the agency has ruled on your claim.
Once you have gone through the procedures listed above -- a process known as "exhausting your administrative remedies" -- you are eligible to file a lawsuit in court to pursue money damages from the government.
Examples of Government Corruption
FBI Audit Exposes Widespread Abuse Of Patriot Act Powers | American Civil Liberties Union
James ‘Whitey’ Bulger’s capture could cause trouble inside the FBI - The Washington Post
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media | Technology | The Guardian
"The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities — known to users of social media as "sock puppets" — could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries"."
LiveLeak.com -
ECPA Case law
Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated, et al. v. Secret Service, et al., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994)
Microsoft Corp. v. United States, No. 14-2985 (2d Cir. 2017)
4th Amendment Case Law
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Soldal v. Cook County 506 U.S. 56 (1992)
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)
Florida v. Jardines 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
There is no immunity for investigative activities Buckley v. Fitzsimmons 509 U.S. 259 (1993)
Government Agencies may not reveal private information during investigations Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957)
They are known to spy on the citizens on the United States
Text of H.R. 6304 (110th): FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us
Here’s everything we know about PRISM to date - The Washington Post
PRISM (surveillance program) - Wikipedia
FBI quietly changes its privacy rules for accessing NSA data on Americans | US news | The Guardian
A Judge Just Admitted The Existence Of The NSA’s PRISM Program - Vocativ
NSA PRISM
both have the capability to turn cell phones and other devices into spying devices Riley v. California 573 U.S. ___ (2014); United States v. United States Dist. Ct. 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
Vault7 - Home
both have the capability to spy through walls using FLIR technology Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
FLIR Systems | Thermal Imaging, Night Vision and Infrared Camera Systems
Warrants can be retrieved and acted on illegally (Overbroad warrants, Malicious Warrants, etc), and those acting on them are liable for doing so Messerschmidt, et al. v. Millender, et al. 565 U.S. ___ (2012)
Defendant and Defendant 2 are both known to abuse their capabilities and retrieve illegal warrants to do so
Court invalidates cell phone warrant as overbroad - The Washington Post
FBI Employees Face Criminal Probe Over Patriot Act Abuse | WIRED
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (full text) :: 418 U.S. 323 (1974) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Steve Kurtz - Wikipedia
Brandon Mayfield - Wikipedia
Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act - Wikipedia
FBI Audit Exposes Widespread Abuse Of Patriot Act Powers | American Civil Liberties Union
James ‘Whitey’ Bulger’s capture could cause trouble inside the FBI - The Washington Post
Patriot Act provisions have expired: What happens now? - CNNPolitics
Criminal Investigation | Chapter Outline
18 U.S. Code SS 241 - Conspiracy against rights | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Abuse of process - Wikipedia
Government Agents must be held to a higher standard than other citizens due to the fact that they are acting under Color of Law Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Color of Law
The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties. Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.
Types of Police misconduct include false confession, false arrest, false evidence, false imprisonment, intimidation, police brutality, police corruption, racial profiling, surveillance abuse, witness tampering, and off-duty misconduct.
Others include:
1. Noble Cause corruption, where an officer believes that a good outcome justifies his bad behavior.
2. Selective Enforcement, allowing friends, family and other officers to break the law.
3. Abuse of Power, using the badge to get in to places you would otherwise not be invited or allowed, discounts, etc.
4. Police Perjury, blatant lying under oath and/or to other authorities to cover wrongdoing.
5. Violation by Officers of police procedural policy.
Laws intended to protect against abuse of authority include the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which includes due process and equal protection clauses; the Civil Rights Act of 1871; and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Noble Cause corruption:
Corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system (ex: By their fruits you shall know them; pulling over anyone with larger rims on their car), suggesting that the person "will utilize unethical, and sometimes illegal, means to obtain a desired result," a result which appears to benefit the greater good.
Flast V Cohen
EPIC - Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
Individuals who violate ECPA face up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000. Victims are also entitled to bring civil suits and recover actual damages, in addition to punitive damages and attorney's fees, for violations.
Kyllo v. United States,533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Florida v. Jardines,569 U.S. ___ (2013)
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)
Call your Congress person and tell them you want to know what your tax Dollars are paying for the FBI to do
202-224-3121
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968)
The "Intelligence Community" uses more Cryptography and Dark Web Applications than anyone in the World, that is why they didn't care what Hillary was doing, they do the same thing all the time.
They used to put like a News Paper or something at your house, with a Clock on the third page with the Hands pointing to the time you were supposed to go sit on the Bench.
Now they use the same Apps they try to tell you not to use because they are for ISIS.
These are articles about the NSA's Program called PRISM, where they use Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc servers to collect information about you:
Here’s everything we know about PRISM to date - The Washington Post
PRISM (surveillance program) - Wikipedia
FBI quietly changes its privacy rules for accessing NSA data on Americans | US news | The Guardian
A Judge Just Admitted The Existence Of The NSA’s PRISM Program - Vocativ
NSA PRISM
If you want to submit a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act request in order to get record from the NSA about you) here is how to do that. The Privacy Act Request is the Normal one to use (the 3rd one here) but you can file both. The top is a sample letter so that you have a template.
Sample FOIA Request Letters | National Freedom of Information Coalition
Submit a FOIA Request
Submit a Privacy Act Request
This is how to file a Consumer Complaint about any Company that has given away your information, this must be filed before a lawsuit.
Filing a Consumer Complaint | USAGov
EPCA (Privacy Act)
EPIC - Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
Privacy Act of 1974
"Individuals who violate ECPA face up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000. Victims are also entitled to bring civil suits and recover actual damages, in addition to punitive damages and attorney's fees, for violations."
FISA (Foreign Surveillance law where the FISA courts come from)
[USC10] 50 USC Ch. 36: FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE
Text of H.R. 6304 (110th): FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us
Applications of the Privacy Act
Federal Laws on Spousal Spying and the ECPA
JURIST -
Agencies Behaving Badly: Government Surveillance and Privacy Act Violations
42 U.S. Code § 1983 (Lawsuit for Violation of Rights)
18 U.S. Code § 242 (Criminal Charges for Government Officers using their status to infringe on personal Rights)
28 USC § 1442 (Bringing a Lawsuit against Government Officers)
Title II Rule 3 & 5 (Procedure for Suing Government Agencies)
Flast V Cohen (You can sue the Government for misuse of tax funds)
Katz V United States (Reasonable expectation of Privacy)
United States V United States District Court (Wiretapping)
Riley V California (Cell Phone Records)
United States V Guest (Protection from Government Conspiracies)
Watkins V United States (Congress' Power is not Unlimited)
Buckley V Fitzsimmons (No Immunity for Illegal investigations)
Hanrahan V Hampton (Example of an Extensive Government Conspiracy hashed out in Court for 20 years)
Include facts and damages in your claim. Your administrative claim must include the exact amount of money damages you are claiming, as well as enough facts about your case to allow the federal agency to investigate the merits of your claim. Using a SF 95 form will help ensure that you've included all of the necessary information.
The agency has six months to respond. Once your claim is submitted, the federal agency has six months to rule on it. In some cases, the federal agency may "admit" your claim (that is, agree that your claim is valid) and agree to pay you some or all of the money damages you demanded, and you may not need to go to court.
You then have six months to file a lawsuit. If the federal agency rejects your claim or refuses to pay all the money damages you demanded, you have six months from the date on which the decision is mailed to you to file a lawsuit. Again, file your lawsuit as soon as possible after receiving this decision to avoid any chance of having your lawsuit dismissed as untimely.
You don't have to sue until the agency rules on your claim. If the federal agency fails to rule on your administrative claim within six months, you have the choice of either awaiting the agency's decision or going ahead with your lawsuit. As long as the federal agency is still considering your claim, there is no time limit for you to file a law suit in federal court; the six-month time limit only begins to run once the agency has ruled on your claim.
Once you have gone through the procedures listed above -- a process known as "exhausting your administrative remedies" -- you are eligible to file a lawsuit in court to pursue money damages from the government.
Examples of Government Corruption
FBI Audit Exposes Widespread Abuse Of Patriot Act Powers | American Civil Liberties Union
James ‘Whitey’ Bulger’s capture could cause trouble inside the FBI - The Washington Post
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media | Technology | The Guardian
"The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities — known to users of social media as "sock puppets" — could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries"."
LiveLeak.com -
ECPA Case law
Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated, et al. v. Secret Service, et al., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994)
Microsoft Corp. v. United States, No. 14-2985 (2d Cir. 2017)
4th Amendment Case Law
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Soldal v. Cook County 506 U.S. 56 (1992)
United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)
Florida v. Jardines 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
There is no immunity for investigative activities Buckley v. Fitzsimmons 509 U.S. 259 (1993)
Government Agencies may not reveal private information during investigations Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957)
They are known to spy on the citizens on the United States
Text of H.R. 6304 (110th): FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Passed Congress version) - GovTrack.us
Here’s everything we know about PRISM to date - The Washington Post
PRISM (surveillance program) - Wikipedia
FBI quietly changes its privacy rules for accessing NSA data on Americans | US news | The Guardian
A Judge Just Admitted The Existence Of The NSA’s PRISM Program - Vocativ
NSA PRISM
both have the capability to turn cell phones and other devices into spying devices Riley v. California 573 U.S. ___ (2014); United States v. United States Dist. Ct. 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
Vault7 - Home
both have the capability to spy through walls using FLIR technology Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
FLIR Systems | Thermal Imaging, Night Vision and Infrared Camera Systems
Warrants can be retrieved and acted on illegally (Overbroad warrants, Malicious Warrants, etc), and those acting on them are liable for doing so Messerschmidt, et al. v. Millender, et al. 565 U.S. ___ (2012)
Defendant and Defendant 2 are both known to abuse their capabilities and retrieve illegal warrants to do so
Court invalidates cell phone warrant as overbroad - The Washington Post
FBI Employees Face Criminal Probe Over Patriot Act Abuse | WIRED
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (full text) :: 418 U.S. 323 (1974) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Steve Kurtz - Wikipedia
Brandon Mayfield - Wikipedia
Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act - Wikipedia
FBI Audit Exposes Widespread Abuse Of Patriot Act Powers | American Civil Liberties Union
James ‘Whitey’ Bulger’s capture could cause trouble inside the FBI - The Washington Post
Patriot Act provisions have expired: What happens now? - CNNPolitics
Criminal Investigation | Chapter Outline
18 U.S. Code SS 241 - Conspiracy against rights | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Abuse of process - Wikipedia
Government Agents must be held to a higher standard than other citizens due to the fact that they are acting under Color of Law Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Color of Law
The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties. Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.
Types of Police misconduct include false confession, false arrest, false evidence, false imprisonment, intimidation, police brutality, police corruption, racial profiling, surveillance abuse, witness tampering, and off-duty misconduct.
Others include:
1. Noble Cause corruption, where an officer believes that a good outcome justifies his bad behavior.
2. Selective Enforcement, allowing friends, family and other officers to break the law.
3. Abuse of Power, using the badge to get in to places you would otherwise not be invited or allowed, discounts, etc.
4. Police Perjury, blatant lying under oath and/or to other authorities to cover wrongdoing.
5. Violation by Officers of police procedural policy.
Laws intended to protect against abuse of authority include the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures; the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which includes due process and equal protection clauses; the Civil Rights Act of 1871; and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Noble Cause corruption:
Corruption caused by the adherence to a teleological ethical system (ex: By their fruits you shall know them; pulling over anyone with larger rims on their car), suggesting that the person "will utilize unethical, and sometimes illegal, means to obtain a desired result," a result which appears to benefit the greater good.
Flast V Cohen
EPIC - Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)
Individuals who violate ECPA face up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000. Victims are also entitled to bring civil suits and recover actual damages, in addition to punitive damages and attorney's fees, for violations.
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
Fourth Amendment [Search and Seizure (1791)]
"[t]he 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."
The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials 1029, 1066; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 626-630
In addition, we have emphasized that "at the very core" of the Fourth Amendment "stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home." Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 682, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). See also Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178-179, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1741-1742, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 316, 91 S.Ct. 381, 385, 27 L.Ed.2d 408 (1971); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 601, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1387, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980).
A "seizure" of property occurs when "there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85.
The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 30, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1628, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963), provides in pertinent part that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
When “the Government obtains information by physically intruding” on persons, houses, papers, or effects, “a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment” has “undoubtedly occurred.” United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ___, ___, n. 3. Pp. 3–4.
The area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home”—the curtilage—is “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.”Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170.
...conception defining the curtilage” is at any rate familiar enough that it is “easily understood from our daily experience.” Oliver, 466 U. S., at 182, n. 12. Here there is no doubt that the officers entered it: The front porch is the classic exemplar of an area adjacent to the home and “to which the activity of home life extends.” Ibid.
“no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s close without his leave,” Entick v. Carrington, 2 Wils. K. B. 275, 291, 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817.
Just as the distinction between the home and the open fields is “as old as the common law,” Hester,supra, at 59, so too is the identity of home and what Blackstone called the “curtilage or homestall,” for the “house protects and privileges all its branches and appurtenants.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 223, 225 (1769). This area around the home is “intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically,” and is where “privacy expectations are most heightened.” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, 213 (1986).
We have accordingly recognized that “the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlersof all kinds.” Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 626 (1951) . This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Thus, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is “no more than any private citizen might do.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 16).
No man is to be convicted on unconstitutional evidence. Cf. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 (1952).
"[t]he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. at 21, 150 N.E. at 587
An agent acting—albeit unconstitutionally—in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own. Cf. Amos v. United States,255 U.S. 313, 317, 41 S.Ct. 266, 267—268, 65 L.Ed. 654 (1921); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 1043, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941).
Criminal Liability of Affiant for Malicious Procurement of Search Warrant. -- Ala.Code, 1958, Tit. 15, § 99; Alaska Comp.Laws Ann., 1949, § 66-7-15; Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann., 1956, § 13-1454; Cal.Pen.Code § 170; Fla.Stat., 1959, § 933.16; Ga.Code Ann., 1953, § 27-301; Idaho Code Ann., 1948, § 18-709; Iowa Code Ann., 1950, § 751.38; Minn.Stat.Ann., 1947, § 613.54; Mont.Rev.Codes Ann., 1947, § 94-35-122; Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 199.130, 199.140; N.J.Stat.Ann., 1940, § 33:1-64; N.Y.Pen.Law § 1786, N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. § 811; N.C.Gen.Stat., 1953, § 15-27 (applies to "officers" only); N.D.Century Code Ann., 1960, §§ 12-17-08, 29-29-18; Okla.Stat., 1951, Tit. 21, § 585, Tit. 22, § 1239; Ore.Rev.Stat. § 141.990; S.D.Code, 1939 (Supp. 1960), § 34.9904; Utah Code Ann., 1953,§ 77-54-21.
Criminal Liability of Magistrate Issuing Warrant Without Supporting Affidavit. -- N.C.Gen.Stat., 1953, § 15-27; Va.Code Ann., 1960 Replacement Volume, § 19.1-89.
Criminal Liability of Officer Willfully Exceeding Authority of Search Warrant. -- Fla.Stat.Ann., 1944, § 933.17; Iowa Code Ann., 1950, § 751.39; Minn.Stat.Ann., 1947, § 613.54; Nev.Rev.Stat. § 199.450; N.Y.Pen.Law § 1847, N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. § 812; N.D.Century Code Ann., 1960, §§ 12-17-07, 29-29-19; Okla.Stat., 1951, Tit. 21, § 536, Tit. 22, § 1240; S.D.Code, 1939 (Supp. 1960), § 34.9905; Tenn.Code Ann., 1955, § 40-510; Utah Code Ann., 1953, § 77-54-22.
Criminal Liability of Officer for Search with Invalid Warrant or no Warrant. -- Idaho Code Ann., 1948, § 18-703; Minn.Stat.Ann., 1947, §§ 613.53, 621.17; Mo.Ann.Stat., 1953, § 558.190; Mont.Rev.Codes Ann., 1947, § 94-3506; N.J.Stat.Ann., 1940, § 33:1-65; N.Y.Pen.Law § 1846; N.D. Century Code Ann., 1960, § 12-17-06; Okla.Stat.Ann., 1958, Tit. 21, § 535; Utah Code Ann., 1953, § 76-28-52; Va.Code Ann., 1960 Replacement Volume, § 19.1-88; Wash.Rev.Code §§ 10.79.040, 10.79.045.
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)
Soldal V Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992)
Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States 251 U.S. 385 (1920)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Florida v. Jardines 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
"[t]he 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."
The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Entick v. Carrington, 19 Howell's State Trials 1029, 1066; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 626-630
In addition, we have emphasized that "at the very core" of the Fourth Amendment "stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home." Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 682, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). See also Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178-179, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1741-1742, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984); Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309, 316, 91 S.Ct. 381, 385, 27 L.Ed.2d 408 (1971); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 601, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1387, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980).
A "seizure" of property occurs when "there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85.
The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 30, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1628, 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963), provides in pertinent part that the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
When “the Government obtains information by physically intruding” on persons, houses, papers, or effects, “a ‘search’ within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment” has “undoubtedly occurred.” United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ___, ___, n. 3. Pp. 3–4.
The area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home”—the curtilage—is “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.”Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170.
...conception defining the curtilage” is at any rate familiar enough that it is “easily understood from our daily experience.” Oliver, 466 U. S., at 182, n. 12. Here there is no doubt that the officers entered it: The front porch is the classic exemplar of an area adjacent to the home and “to which the activity of home life extends.” Ibid.
“no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s close without his leave,” Entick v. Carrington, 2 Wils. K. B. 275, 291, 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 817.
Just as the distinction between the home and the open fields is “as old as the common law,” Hester,supra, at 59, so too is the identity of home and what Blackstone called the “curtilage or homestall,” for the “house protects and privileges all its branches and appurtenants.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 223, 225 (1769). This area around the home is “intimately linked to the home, both physically and psychologically,” and is where “privacy expectations are most heightened.” California v. Ciraolo, 476 U. S. 207, 213 (1986).
We have accordingly recognized that “the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlersof all kinds.” Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622, 626 (1951) . This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Thus, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is “no more than any private citizen might do.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 16).
No man is to be convicted on unconstitutional evidence. Cf. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 (1952).
"[t]he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. at 21, 150 N.E. at 587
An agent acting—albeit unconstitutionally—in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own. Cf. Amos v. United States,255 U.S. 313, 317, 41 S.Ct. 266, 267—268, 65 L.Ed. 654 (1921); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 1043, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941).
Criminal Liability of Affiant for Malicious Procurement of Search Warrant. -- Ala.Code, 1958, Tit. 15, § 99; Alaska Comp.Laws Ann., 1949, § 66-7-15; Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann., 1956, § 13-1454; Cal.Pen.Code § 170; Fla.Stat., 1959, § 933.16; Ga.Code Ann., 1953, § 27-301; Idaho Code Ann., 1948, § 18-709; Iowa Code Ann., 1950, § 751.38; Minn.Stat.Ann., 1947, § 613.54; Mont.Rev.Codes Ann., 1947, § 94-35-122; Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 199.130, 199.140; N.J.Stat.Ann., 1940, § 33:1-64; N.Y.Pen.Law § 1786, N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. § 811; N.C.Gen.Stat., 1953, § 15-27 (applies to "officers" only); N.D.Century Code Ann., 1960, §§ 12-17-08, 29-29-18; Okla.Stat., 1951, Tit. 21, § 585, Tit. 22, § 1239; Ore.Rev.Stat. § 141.990; S.D.Code, 1939 (Supp. 1960), § 34.9904; Utah Code Ann., 1953,§ 77-54-21.
Criminal Liability of Magistrate Issuing Warrant Without Supporting Affidavit. -- N.C.Gen.Stat., 1953, § 15-27; Va.Code Ann., 1960 Replacement Volume, § 19.1-89.
Criminal Liability of Officer Willfully Exceeding Authority of Search Warrant. -- Fla.Stat.Ann., 1944, § 933.17; Iowa Code Ann., 1950, § 751.39; Minn.Stat.Ann., 1947, § 613.54; Nev.Rev.Stat. § 199.450; N.Y.Pen.Law § 1847, N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. § 812; N.D.Century Code Ann., 1960, §§ 12-17-07, 29-29-19; Okla.Stat., 1951, Tit. 21, § 536, Tit. 22, § 1240; S.D.Code, 1939 (Supp. 1960), § 34.9905; Tenn.Code Ann., 1955, § 40-510; Utah Code Ann., 1953, § 77-54-22.
Criminal Liability of Officer for Search with Invalid Warrant or no Warrant. -- Idaho Code Ann., 1948, § 18-703; Minn.Stat.Ann., 1947, §§ 613.53, 621.17; Mo.Ann.Stat., 1953, § 558.190; Mont.Rev.Codes Ann., 1947, § 94-3506; N.J.Stat.Ann., 1940, § 33:1-65; N.Y.Pen.Law § 1846; N.D. Century Code Ann., 1960, § 12-17-06; Okla.Stat.Ann., 1958, Tit. 21, § 535; Utah Code Ann., 1953, § 76-28-52; Va.Code Ann., 1960 Replacement Volume, § 19.1-88; Wash.Rev.Code §§ 10.79.040, 10.79.045.
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383 (1914)
Soldal V Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992)
Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States 251 U.S. 385 (1920)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Florida v. Jardines 569 U.S. ___ (2013)
SashaShiva
Well-Known Member
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279, codified at 47 USC 1001-1010).
CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct lawful interception of communication by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment to modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in capabilities for targeted surveillance, allowing federal agencies to selectively wiretap any telephone traffic; it has since been extended to cover broadband Internet and VoIP traffic. Some government agencies argue that it covers mass surveillance of communications rather than just tapping specific lines and that not all CALEA-based access requires a warrant.
The original reason for adopting CALEA was the Federal Bureau of Investigation's worry that increasing use of digital telephone exchange switches would make tapping phones at the phone company's central office harder and slower to execute, or in some cases impossible.[citation needed] Since the original requirement to add CALEA-compliant interfaces required phone companies to modify or replace hardware and software in their systems, U.S. Congress included funding for a limited time period to cover such network upgrades.[citation needed] CALEA was passed into law on October 25, 1994 and came into force on January 1, 1995.[citation needed]
In the years since CALEA was passed it has been greatly expanded to include all VoIP and broadband Internet traffic. From 2004 to 2007 there was a 62 percent growth in the number of wiretaps performed under CALEA – and more than 3,000 percent growth in interception of Internet data such as email.[1]
By 2007, the FBI had spent $39 million on its Digital Collection System Network (DCSNet) system, which collects, stores, indexes, and analyzes communications data.
CALEA's purpose is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct lawful interception of communication by requiring that telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment to modify and design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have built-in capabilities for targeted surveillance, allowing federal agencies to selectively wiretap any telephone traffic; it has since been extended to cover broadband Internet and VoIP traffic. Some government agencies argue that it covers mass surveillance of communications rather than just tapping specific lines and that not all CALEA-based access requires a warrant.
The original reason for adopting CALEA was the Federal Bureau of Investigation's worry that increasing use of digital telephone exchange switches would make tapping phones at the phone company's central office harder and slower to execute, or in some cases impossible.[citation needed] Since the original requirement to add CALEA-compliant interfaces required phone companies to modify or replace hardware and software in their systems, U.S. Congress included funding for a limited time period to cover such network upgrades.[citation needed] CALEA was passed into law on October 25, 1994 and came into force on January 1, 1995.[citation needed]
In the years since CALEA was passed it has been greatly expanded to include all VoIP and broadband Internet traffic. From 2004 to 2007 there was a 62 percent growth in the number of wiretaps performed under CALEA – and more than 3,000 percent growth in interception of Internet data such as email.[1]
By 2007, the FBI had spent $39 million on its Digital Collection System Network (DCSNet) system, which collects, stores, indexes, and analyzes communications data.
Similar threads
