Is this true?

[salezzi]

people tell me that if the man flys over where u planted that they can find it becuase cannabis lets off a certain heat wave. it sound like a bunch of bull to me. is this true?

salezzi Reviewed by salezzi on 04-04-2006. Is this true? people tell me that if the man flys over where u planted that they can find it becuase cannabis lets off a certain heat wave. it sound like a bunch of bull to me. is this true? Rating: 5

[Sparrow]

Late in the season the leaves of cannabis will still be green when the forest is turning.

Here is a couple ways to beat the case if it does happen.

Case Examples-
Example #1
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.
A Florida county sheriff received a tip that Riley was growing marijuana on his five acres of rural property. Unable to see inside a greenhouse, which was behind the defendant's mobile home, the sheriff circled over the property using a helicopter. The absence of two roof panels allowed the sheriff to see, with his naked eye, what appeared to be marijuana growing inside. A warrant was obtained and marijuana was found in the greenhouse. Riley successfully argued before the trial court that the aerial search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court of Appeals disagreed, siding instead with the state, but the Florida Supreme Court agreed with Riley and overturned the Court of Appeals.

Decision and Rationale
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court with a four-vote plurality, arguing that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation that the greenhouse was protected from aerial view, and thus that the helicopter surveillance did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:
Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more.
Also vital to the Court's ruling was the fact that the helicopter did not interfere with the normal use of the property:
As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, no wind, no dust, or threat of injury. In these circumstances, there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment.

THE OFFICER DID NOT ENTER APON PRIVATE PROPERTY TO CHECK, AS THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS A PERSONS PRIVACY, SECURITY, AND LIBERTY ON ONES PROPERTY.

Example #2-
Kyllo v. United States 533 U.S. 27 (2001)[1], was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the use of a thermal imaging device to detect heat emanating from a house constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, therefore requiring police to obtain a search warrant.




Page 29
Facts
Danny Lee Kyllo had been charged and convicted with growing marijuana in his Oregon home after a search was conducted. A federal agent had made observations with an infrared camera outside of Kyllo's home which showed that there was an unusual amount of heat radiating from the roof and side walls of the home. (The assumption is, to grow indoors, one needs to provide lots of light so plants can photosynthesize.) This information was subsequently used to obtain a search warrant, where federal agents discovered over 100 marajuana plants growing in the home. Kyllo first tried to supress the evidence, then plead guilty. Kyllo appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court on the grounds that such observations with a thermal-imaging device constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. There, the conviction was upheld.

Opinion of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the imaging of Kyllo's home constituted a search. Since the police did not have a warrant when they used the device, the search was presumptively unreasonable and therefore illegal.

[salezzi]

so since im growing outdoors and the plant is well covered i can't really be discoverd

[Sparrow]

If it is on your land and you have to go on your land to see it then police can not get a warrant from flying over. If you put it in a green house with green house film you are good to go.

Private aircraft can report you but you get to know who they are.

They can still take your plants illegally and then you can win your case. You dont see jail time but you dont get to keep your ladies either.

[rhino44]

for bigger crops wich is what they r looking for. they can see a difference in tempature where the ground has been watered. otherwise if you just plant one here and one over there its almost impossible to find. They usually pick out big crops with their eyes and more often than that its some kind of intelligence(i.e. a rat)