What Can Cop's Really See In Our Grow Room's

[BigBudDaddy08]

Ok Just wonduring ,can cop's see heat inside your house with a heat detecter thing .Or can they just see the heat coming out of your house for example vent holes for cooling your room's or what?

BigBudDaddy08 Reviewed by BigBudDaddy08 on 04-06-2006. What Can Cop's Really See In Our Grow Room's Ok Just wonduring ,can cop's see heat inside your house with a heat detecter thing .Or can they just see the heat coming out of your house for example vent holes for cooling your room's or what? Rating: 5

[BOYZNUS]

THEY WOULD SEE UR OVEN, WATER HEATER, TV, HEATER, THINGS LIKE THAT,,, IF THEY WAS LOOKING. BUT TRUST ME,, THEY AINT AND THEY CANT. GOOD LUCK

[Sparrow]

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.


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.



Affidavit for warrant- Make sure there is no false facts, if so


II the evidence from a search based on the warrant may later be excluded upon the proper motion being e If the warrant is issued on the basis of statements in the affidavit that the police knew to be untrue or which were recklessly made without proper regard for their truth, the evidence from a search based on the warrant is not valid. By submitting a false affidavit, Officer Fox did not act "in good faith." The search was thus improper, and whatever it turned up is inadmissible in evidence.

At common law, all evidence, no matter how seized, could be admitted in court. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), however, the Supreme Court adopted the "exclusionary rule," whereby evidence seized unlawfully was declared inadmissible in court. The rule mainly serves as a deterrent to police officers seeking to conduct unlawful searches and seizures; it has, however, a number of exceptions. The rule was extended to the states in Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961). In United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897] (1984), the Supreme Court applied the "good faith" rule: evidence seized by officers objectively and in good faith relying on a warrant that was later found to be defective was still deemed admissible. If an officer dishonestly or recklessly prepares an affidavit forming the basis of the warrant, if the issuing magistrate abandons his neutrality or if the warrant lacks particularity, however, evidence seized pursuant to the warrant would still be excluded.

Despite their clarity, the Fourth Amendment's protections against "unreasonable searches and seizures" have in fact been drastically weakened since they became the law of the land in 1791. As it stands today, unless there exists a "reasonable" expectation of
privacy -- that is, a "reasonable" expectation that what one does or says will not be seen
or heard by someone else -- neither local police nor federal law enforcement authorities are required to get a warrant or other court order before they start a surveillance operation.

[BOYZNUS]

SPARROW,,,, U DA BOMB

[smoknjoe]

They can't see heat inside your house. Only outer surfaces of the house giving off heat. Insulation helps. Attic is more suspicious than basement, especially in winter. THey can see hot air coming out into cool air. You should try to vent out the dryer duct, it looks more normal.

[Chris Chronic]

i heard that c.a.m.p cant do seaches like that in big city areas because of all the vents in apts and shit like that but in wide open areas youre screwed if u see helocopters

[BOYZNUS]

THE LEO'S DONT HAVE THE FUNDING FOR MINOR CRAP LIKE A GROW ROOM,,, REVEALED BY A INFRA-RED GUN.

[BigBudDaddy08]

Thank's everyone i just moved into the state's.And i will not stop growing because of some law .But would rather have my ass covered than anything eles .Smoknjo not a bad idea.But im only growing 3 plants in a 3x3 area with 1000wtt hortilux bulb .so hope there aint too much heat getting put off.

[oldsanclem]

You all must think cops are real dumb or dumber. Any 35 mm camera can load a roll of IR film. Now a wide angel camera works like a charm. Take some pictures from a high place. Then they just stake out the house,,, Ever know a stoner , the cops just add things up once the spot a hot house. The Ir thing never makes it to court. Ever see the big + and X in the streets, well that a way the county can find bootleged home additions. Once a year they go up so high and take IR pictures, and over lay the slide and match up the +x. BUT it also shows up hot houses. I was on a airplane with a DEA fed they do not even fool with the little grows.
Now what is not a federal invasion is growing on federal land. The Quantico Feds have a camera that looks for the green of outdoor grows. It can spot a pot plant in a oak tree. Color photography is not against anybodys rights.
Now to look at maps GIS has some good ones. Look at a public thing like google earth
Help a Old med users , grandma will give you some cookies. Give a judge some pot for med use. What goes around comes around

[rodekyll]

Thank's everyone i just moved into the state's.And i will not stop growing because of some law .But would rather have my ass covered than anything eles .Smoknjo not a bad idea.But im only growing 3 plants in a 3x3 area with 1000wtt hortilux bulb .so hope there aint too much heat getting put off.

I'm growing four plants very nicely in the same area with a 400w mh bulb and daisy-petal reflector connected to a 1000w (remote) ballast. If heat is an issue for you, you might look into changing to a 400w bulb.

just a thought