anti detection foil?

Discussion in 'Indoor Marijuana Growing' started by dschill, May 16, 2006.

  1. alright so i was watchin this grow movie i downloaded and in the video they say put some sort of foil on the cealing that they called "Anti-Detection Foil" "to mask the tempeture difference" and ive never heard of such a thing so im wondering if there actually is something you can put up to hide the heat signatures? And if so how does it work? But like ive said ive never heard of such a thing and was wondering if you guys have? I still have the video and i can upload it if someone wants to see it i just need somewhere to upload to.
     
  2. dunno about "anti-detection foil" (sounds like tin foil, which turns a small grow area into an oven?) - but I do know two things:

    1. its illegal for the cops (in the USA) to use remote heat sensing technology without a warrant - Kyllo is the Supreme Court case which said that using the tech. on your house constitutes a 4th amendment search - so no warrant, no using tech - the result of which is that any evidence the cops gain without the warrant is inadmissable for prosecution...

    2. for your grow to have a noticeable heat signature - more than your dryer, say - it would have to be pretty sizable. an HPS lamp or two will not have much of a profile..
     
  3. yea i preatty much figured that but i just wanted to make sure..the video isnt too bad but they go to great extents to be "Stealthy" such as useing rubber rings to suspend the enourmous exaust van to the cealing so it doesnt vibrate and make nose...
     
  4. ive seen the same thing in paint form that the military uses, but its not foil...
     
  5. Edit" OPPS

    HIGH All, move out of the rents House...things should be cool.
     
  6. This isn't true. The Supreme Court ruled that the cops cannot use FLIR without a warrant to justify the securing of a warrant on the basis of FLIR alone. It is NOT illegal for the police to use it though. They do use it, and they still use it. They just can't use it to GET a warrant on the basis of a FLIR scan. But if they suspect you, they can FLIR your house and confirm their suspicions. Or, they can FLIR your house, find out you're growing and then commence with an investigation.
     
  7. I dont know whether cops are using FLIR, but they shouldnt be. The Court found the use of the technology to constitute a search violative of 4th amendment privacy expecations, period. The holding is not limited as you suggest, that thermal detection only cannot be used to obtain a warrant. The very reason why it cant be used to obtain a warrant is because the use of the themal scan itself needs to be warranted. No warrant = no use. SO they cannot use the tech merely to "confirm their suspicions" as you mentioned. Now, of course, they MIGHT be doing that, but its blatantly illegal in the instances where they are.

    The uptake is that cops cant just drive through a neighborhood where they suspect pot in being grown and take an image of every house they pass. That would be akin to a cop going to a high-crime neighborhood and stopping and frisking everybody who passes on the sidewalk - even if the cops chose not to use any info. gained in the frisks for the purposes of criminal prosecution, they still cant do it.

    And in any case, if you are at the point where cops are taking thermal reads of you house, you have bigger concerns than whether you have anti-detection foil in your room: it means that the cops are already suspicious of you. It means that they already have other evidence that something fishy is going on inside your house. In Kyllo, the cops already had people willing to testify about the grow (buyers? ex-friends? ex-girlfriends? ex-roommates?) and had Kyllo's electrical records (he had over 100 plants and was using HID).

    The real moral of the story: dont tell people what you are doing, and dont run a huge commercial operation...
     
  8. did you even read my posting?

    This is a problem that develops from people playing amature lawyer.

    The ruling of the SC, said that an unwarranted search via FLIR was unconstitutional; thus, any information obtained through the use of an unwarranted search is unusable toward the "searchees" prosecution. It did NOT say that the police could NOT use FLIR or that they had to stop.

    The Police can still roll down the street, just as you say, and FLIR every house they drive by. Why? Because they don't have to use the info they obtain. They don't have to ever say that they did use FLIR.

    Here's a scenario that does not violate the letter of the SC ruling, just the intent:

    COPS roll down your street with a handheld FLIR camera. They see the outside surface of your spare bedroom putting out an abnormal amount of heat when compared to similar houses on your street. Doughnut eater #1 says to the guy driving: "Hey Doughnuteater#2, this house has a lot of heat coming off a bedroom, let's look into that".

    So, the Doughnut eating twins call your utility company and ask them if they'd like to voluntarily give them some details about your power usage. The power company says "sure" and hands it to them. So now, the cops have a higher than comparable power usage to put into their treasure trove of evidence. The power bill is admissible and was legally obtained without a warrant.

    Now, the cops starting observing your house and/or talking to neighbors, running registrations on vehicles parked at your house, etc… they also look up whether or not you are employed, what kind of telephone usage you have, whether or not you cruise around to meet up with a bunch of different people or whether or not a bunch of different people cruise by your house. With the amount of info they can put together here, it is likely that they can convince a judge to grant a sneak and peak. Right here, they COULD have enough to obtain a search warrant depending on what was reported by neighbors or what activities they observed. At the very least, it’s likely that a warrant for FLIR can now be granted and that this new scan will lead to a search warrant.

    To state that FLIR was “struck down” by the Supreme Court is a gross overstatement.

    Do you honestly think the cops will stop using an effective tool just because they are told to? Or, do you live on planet Earth and understand that they will skirt the rules to just about any effect as long as it produces results?
     
  9. haha, i thought the same thing up4anything.
     
  10. up,

    first of all, no need for the snide "amateur lawyer" comment.

    secondly, despite your insistence, the SC did effectively tell cops to stop using warrantless thermal imaging. it is not material how the cops use or dont use the info they obtain; its how they obtain it that matters. so, correct, they cannot use the info in any prosecution or to obtain a warrant, but this is not a rule invented out of midair - its the rule because obtaining the info via the thermal imaging is unconstitutional. so, in no uncertain terms, they are telling the cops to stop using the tech without a warrant. period.

    but we agree as to the practical significance of this. do cops still use the technology? probably. but is it legal for them to do so? no, absolutely not.
     
  11. and if your point is that people will still do things even when they're illegal, well I dont think anyone on this site will find that especially insightful....
     
  12. well it seems youve all done a preatty good job at straying away from the point of my post...while the information is usefull i would still like to know weather or not this stuff does or doesnt exsist?
     
  13. it does exsist, its quite a pretty penny.

    just google it or you can check out www.hydroasis.com
     


  14. well, first of all, it wasn't snide, I was serious. That is what youo're doing. And you're wrong.



    if you want, I can burry you in case law with exceptions, exclusions, and perversions, of what the SC has ruled "unconstitutional".

    Want a perfect example? How about the "knock and announce"? Or, how about when a cop knows there is evidence in your appartment and couldn't get a warrant so they stop by and then they think they heard "sounds of a struggle" and possibly "a muffled call for help or a scream", so they kick in the door and then use the "safety search" provision to find exactly what they needed. What you have here is a warrantless search that violates one's 4th am. but is absolutely admissible and within the restrictions of the law.

    It is legal for the cops to use. The SC never ruled on the "legality" of a FLIR scan. They ruled on the "constitutionality" of using the FLIR toward one's prosecution if the FLIR was obtained without first securing a warrant.

    This is also similar to the asking a detainee questions without first Mirandizing him/her. Ask ask ask ask ask, THEN place under arrest. After arrest, you still don't have to Mirandize provided you don't ask any more probative questions. Did this violate the arrestees rights? Absolutely. Is it legal? Absolutely.

    The problem with non-professionals interpreting the law is that there is a difference between the "Letter" and the "practive/application" of a ruling.

    You're welcome to keep believing whatever you want and continue being wrong - unfortunately, everyone in this country has the constitutional right to be ignorant :D
     
  15. again, please listen, THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT SAY IT IS ILLEGAL!!! READ THE CASE
     
  16. yes, it exists.
     
  17. up,

    the exceptions you list are instances where the cops can argue that the searches, while warrantless, were reasonable, and so OK by the 4th amendment (where activities have to be deemed searches AND be deemed unreasonable in order to be unconstitutional) . These exceptions, though, are limited and very highly curtailed, and usually subject to burdensome litigation when they invoke them.

    Shooting thermal imaging randomly at every house on a street, as a fishing expedition, is not reasonable. Please describe for me a scenario where the cops could convince a judge that a warrantless use would be reasonable, where there was that pressing need akin to a safety search.


    The problem ultimately is one of police monitoring. Cops are often acting close to the constitutional line, and they cross it pretty often. People interrogations are an instance where this happens all the time. So its not difficult to imagine cops using FLIR on the sly. My point is that they shouldn't be.

    But keep in mind that people are going to give the police more slack when it comes to what they regard as crime-fighting powers - public sympathy for violent criminals is pretty low.

    However, when it comes to the privacy of the home, courts are going to be far less forgiving.


    And by the way, there's no reason not to choose to be civilized.
     
  18. There was no lack of civility that I saw.

    Maybe you should go to law school and then you'll understand.

    The SC did not rule the FLIR scanning illegal. It still takes place. Period.

    The fact that they FLIR'd you, sans warrant, will never come up. They'll find another way and then get a warrant to FLIR you and do it again, this time with a warrant, and then log that as evidence. Just because of that ruling, which you should read, does not mean that every law enforcement agency in the country that owned a FLIR camera simply shelved them and don't deploy them anymore. On the contrary, they are very cheap now. Many patrol units in metropolitan areas have one. They are still used. They are especially used on helicopters.

    If you are small time, not involved in other crime, and don’t move narcotics, you probably don’t have anything to worry about. Give them a reason to fuck with you, though, and they certainly will.

    Anyone here that thinks the SC ruling means random FLIR is a thing of the past, you’re kidding yourselves.
     
  19. The instances I pointed out are not comparitive in their legal minutiae, I brought them up to illustrate the point that COPS BREAK THE RULES. They do it all the time. I see it all the time. Believe what you want to believe. That's your right.
     
  20. if you dont think the cops are '' above'' the law, you have many times to be pulled over for no reason. and then they give you a bullshit ass reason to search your vehicle.




    up4anything. i especially like the quote ' ' donut eater #1 and 2 ilmao.....
     

Grasscity Deals Near You

Loading...

Share This Page