It's hard to see this standing up in a Supreme Court trial, if it ever made it there.
IIRC, they struck down heat images of houses without warrants because they reveal too much about the inhabitants' activities. This is way worse.
IIRC, they struck down heat images of houses without warrants because they reveal too much about the inhabitants' activities. This is way worse.
They could have a doctor ride along and examine the x-rays of the people they scan. The program could then be legal under an Health Care mandate! Easy solution!
OK. Not so funny... that's why I'm not a comedian.
Whoa, I missed the "Health Care mandate" Constitutional amendment. Regular laws cannot override the Constitution, which says "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."
The roving X-ray vans are missing a warrant, probable cause, and a description of "the place to be searched".
http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty...
See?
the supreme court (led by scalia) has said that "heat-sensor" searches of homes are illegal. it's true there's a diminished expectation of privacy in vehicles, but i'd be very surprised if the x-ray vans withstood a legal challenge.
just recently, there was also a unanimous opinion also that held that warrantless gps tracking is unconstitutional.
in my opinion, the biggest problem faced by the court in fourth amendment cases isn't political pressure, but the subjective notions of privacy of the individual justices. they've lived lives that are very different than those of the average american, and as a result i think their perception of what makes an expectation of privacy reasonable is a bit off