Talk:Kyllo v. United States

Review for possible COPYVIO

I found at least two paragraphs in this article that are verbatim to two in a Xanga blog by jrgini37 (this issue was raised by the Xanga blog author on the WP Hwlp Desk). The paragraph beginning, "For Kyllo, the result was tremendous . . ." was added to WP here on August 12, 2006; the one beginning "Kyllo was charged with growing marijuana in violation of federal law." was added here also on August 12. The key words used to identify the correlations are "tremendous" and "reflected", respectively. I also reviewed the sources for both documents and do not find common verbiage to easily explain the identical passages. Further review shows significant portions of the article are identical to the Xanga paper. In some cases, the new (verbatim) passages in the WP article replaced existing passages that addressed the same point, but with different word choice. I'm unfamiliar with how Xanga may maintain history, but the URL on jrgini37's blog entry appears to support that the entry was added almost a full year before the material in the WP article appeared.

There appears to be enough in question to warrant further investigation, so I added the copvio tag and placed an entry on Copyright_problems/2007_July_4/Articles. Comments from anyone who can shed further light on this are welcome. Thanks.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I claim to be the author of the article, and have been asked to explain these similarities. I recognize my own writing style, and contend that the xanga.com article was taken from my edits. Because certain other stock phrases in this version of the article correlate with other WP entries I have written, I submit there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that the article is an original creation of mine. However, I cannot reconcile the date on which I wrote the article with the date of the blog post. The person who flagged this text as a possible copyright violation has suggested that the blog host might not date its entries accurately, but this explanation seems unlikely here because the author of the blog entry claims that he made the entry on his birthday.

I'm not an expert in either American copyright law or Wikipedia's copyright policy. I do know that even unintentional infringement is a violation, and so it does me no good to say that I didn't know the text was already out there when I wrote what I wrote. Perhaps the best solution is to revert the article to its pre-violation version and allow someone else to write it. ---Axios023 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Misconceptions about the limits imposed by this ruling

Forgive me if my own interpretation is itself a misconception but this article seems to reinforce that the ruling means police "can't scan without a warrant". In other words stop them from warrantless surveillance of homes with technology. Rather it meant that they no longer could use the information from a warrantless scan to obtain a search warrant or in court. They are still free to use infrared (now more likely through wall radar or x-ray) as they wish and make up a reason to obtain a warrant if they choose to be dishonest about it. The cable show Kopbusters had an episode in Odessa TX where they did just that. If this is correct the article should make this clear, that it does not limit them from using these technologies.Batvette (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, the same can be said of any instance in which the police "choose to be dishonest about it". That police might obtain information illegally is nothing new. The bottom line is that they cannot legally use the technology, or any information that was obtained through its use, without a warrant.  —Grollτech (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but perhaps through my own wording I wasn't clear. Does the ruling mean the information from a scan can't be used in court or to obtain a warrant, or that they can't scan dwellings at all without a court order? You seem to suggest it's the latter and if that's the case the ruling is meaningless. Every time we see footage from a police helicopter chasing a suspect at night they show FLIR scanning of the whole neighborhood. They ruled on a case where info from a scan was used to obtain a warrant, on their ruling the case was dismissed, right? So in the interest of improving the article perhaps we need to expand on this distinction because the article still makes it unclear because it doesn't say anywhere that their scan was now illegal, just that his conviction was overturned and the warrant obtained for his conviction was on the basis of the (unconstitutional) scan. Unconstitutional =/= illegal. Batvette (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Flaws in the Decision

The majority opinion reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the mechanism of the imager. A thermograph collects infrared radiation (thermal or heat radiation) and converts it to the visible spectrum. The infrared is present regardless of the presence or absence of the thermograph. Ina properly conducted investigation, the thermograph is the last step in establishing probable cause and is used to confirm the other observations (informants, smells, trash pulls, visual, etc.) indicating the probability that a marijuana grow operation is taking place. Use of the thermograph must take place from a vantage point which does not involve invading the curtilage of the property. Thermographs, far from being generally unavailable to the public, are merely expensive, in the case of commercial models, but may be as simple as a video camera with no infrared filter. These are usually available at Radio Shack. Kyllo appears to be a case where the police didn't conduct all of the steps to properly investigate the case or the government failed to adequately explain the investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltheDago (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The post actually displays a misunderstanding of the ruling, this is covered at length in the ruling as well as the dissenting arguments of the justices. While infrared radiation is emitted from the dwelling the fact was at the time of the ruling FLIR scanning equipment was prohibitively expensive for citizens to procure. It was mentioned the problem with developing and cheaper technologies. Essentially it sounds like you're presenting your opinion on the ruling and while you're entitled to it it's not really relevant, and the point you mention is well covered in the ruling. Interestingly enough while this prohibited passive technologies a certain American company has shipped in excess of 500 vans with X-ray through the wall scanning capability, many to domestic agencies. If they're not supposed to gather data on emissions from the structure what justification do they have for using invasive technologies? Are they really only using it on people and vehicles on common public property?Batvette (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)