Thursday, 22 January 2015, WASHINGTON, D.C. - Law enforcement agencies secretly starting in 2012 with federal agencies such as the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service at the vanguard and since having spread like an aggressive malicious cancer (to already dangerously "militarized" through the deranged DOD "1033 program" giveaway bonanza of everything from machine guns to tanks given to untrained police even college campus police departments all over the country) the Ninth Amendment has discovered that these past three years among other widespread unconstitutional actions they further are engaging in Orwellian activities secretly violating the privacy of and using exterior wall-held radar to see into Americans' homes with a $6,000 device (likely bought with unconstitutional "forfeitures" of frequently uncharged and/or innocent citizens' cash and property which DOJ has stopped allowing under federal law with over $2 billion worth of booty already taken by feds and police but state and local police still continue often after taking pricey "seminars" reportedly widely given by the company Desert Snow where former law enforcement officers apparently share special techniques not taught at the police academy on how better to to seize as much cash and easily fenced items as possible).
The completely invasive radar device has for more than two years often been used by unchecked and unmonitored police placing the largely secretly used device against an exterior wall to detect the presence of every living person just by their breathing as well as track their every movement and location for a distance of greater than fifty feet within their home, business, office or wherever. Doubtless if there were technology available to such police in the same spirit of unchecked lawlessness they might prefer invading everyone's homes by watching them through their television sets (if not by their computer cameras which incidentally according to the New York Times technology writer should be kept covered with tape when not intentionally in operation by the computer user not because of law enforcement specifically but for protection from any hacker).
The completely invasive radar device has for more than two years often been used by unchecked and unmonitored police placing the largely secretly used device against an exterior wall to detect the presence of every living person just by their breathing as well as track their every movement and location for a distance of greater than fifty feet within their home, business, office or wherever. Doubtless if there were technology available to such police in the same spirit of unchecked lawlessness they might prefer invading everyone's homes by watching them through their television sets (if not by their computer cameras which incidentally according to the New York Times technology writer should be kept covered with tape when not intentionally in operation by the computer user not because of law enforcement specifically but for protection from any hacker).
In the opinion of the Ninth Amendment editorial board this widespread uncontrolled distribution of a device with such uses so obviously threatening including to core constitutional rights against warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment and the right to privacy especially in one's home and personal spaces (although the maker casts the device largely as a tool for search and rescue and safety operations) not only theoretically but as a known fact as to the indiscriminate sale of these these "Radar-R" detectors from L-3 Communications - CyTerra Corporation is irresponsible and one would think might expose any entity in the supply chain to potential liability.
Our strictly lay view is that the known and now widely reported fact (such as in the USA Today article linked to below) of their widespread unlawful use shows a reckless disregard along the supply chain for the consequences of the uncontrolled availability of the devices demonstrated to have been used largely secretly doubtless because of well-founded concerns about the unconstitutionality of their use by law enforcement agencies intentionally by not informing those they legally should nor seeking legal opinions as to the need for probable cause, search warrants and so on with the devices serving as a virtual invitation to violate the Fourth Amendment and right to privacy among other things.
It reasonably could be expected as well that all manner of criminals from more "sophisticated" types such as burglars preying on the wealthier casing empty homes to other very dangerous criminals willing to break and enter an occupied dwelling such as not only a burglar but a stalker, sex offender or others with violent intentions now are virtually invited to violate the most sacred sanctity of one's home with a device that can either identify an unoccupied dwelling or track the occupants of one that is occupied.
This device in the wrong hands poses a quite plausible threat to that most strongly felt of last American strongholds that "One's Home is One's Castle" where any man and/or woman has every right and reason to feel secure in their dwelling for the sake of themselves, their family and loved ones without the added concern about a potentially dangerous individual tracking them with exterior wall contact radar as if being right in their homes which should that actually occur by long tradition justifies the strongest of responses by the homeowner or occupants under invasion or threat of severe bodily harm or death in the sanctity of their most private of places because such an intrusion clearly can lead to the most fearful and dangerous of circumstances and events. (Since the actions one legally may take vary greatly from state to state for home defense from similar acts of defense in some states being perfectly legal while in other states potentially being considered murder by the home occupant readers absolutely must consult a properly licensed attorney on this matter for legal advice which this does not purport to be and most definitely is not as the Ninth Amendment cannot and does not provide any legal advice whatsoever at all.)
Our strictly lay view is that the known and now widely reported fact (such as in the USA Today article linked to below) of their widespread unlawful use shows a reckless disregard along the supply chain for the consequences of the uncontrolled availability of the devices demonstrated to have been used largely secretly doubtless because of well-founded concerns about the unconstitutionality of their use by law enforcement agencies intentionally by not informing those they legally should nor seeking legal opinions as to the need for probable cause, search warrants and so on with the devices serving as a virtual invitation to violate the Fourth Amendment and right to privacy among other things.
It reasonably could be expected as well that all manner of criminals from more "sophisticated" types such as burglars preying on the wealthier casing empty homes to other very dangerous criminals willing to break and enter an occupied dwelling such as not only a burglar but a stalker, sex offender or others with violent intentions now are virtually invited to violate the most sacred sanctity of one's home with a device that can either identify an unoccupied dwelling or track the occupants of one that is occupied.
This device in the wrong hands poses a quite plausible threat to that most strongly felt of last American strongholds that "One's Home is One's Castle" where any man and/or woman has every right and reason to feel secure in their dwelling for the sake of themselves, their family and loved ones without the added concern about a potentially dangerous individual tracking them with exterior wall contact radar as if being right in their homes which should that actually occur by long tradition justifies the strongest of responses by the homeowner or occupants under invasion or threat of severe bodily harm or death in the sanctity of their most private of places because such an intrusion clearly can lead to the most fearful and dangerous of circumstances and events. (Since the actions one legally may take vary greatly from state to state for home defense from similar acts of defense in some states being perfectly legal while in other states potentially being considered murder by the home occupant readers absolutely must consult a properly licensed attorney on this matter for legal advice which this does not purport to be and most definitely is not as the Ninth Amendment cannot and does not provide any legal advice whatsoever at all.)
This post is not meant by any means to be an advertisement nor encouragement by informing anyone not previously aware of this potentially so widely illegally used device by sneaks, snoops, rogue cops and criminals so that they might seek to use these devices but to spread awareness of their existence to a greater audience that they may be aware of them. Even as quoted from a federal appeals court below many may wish them more widely controlled and monitored if they share the view that they likely are too often used for unconstitutional and criminal purposes.
Some may believe as there are very few others who could have a legitimate need or use to acquire such a device to "see" into people's homes, businesses, offices or whatever by coming within the curtilage of a dwelling or other personal private indoor place and press the device against an exterior wall to use radar to check for the presence of occupants and giving those just pressing this device against exterior walls the ability to track one's every breath and movement inside one's own home, business or wherever claimed by the maker of the device to extend to a tracking distance of more than fifty feet inside the structure.
Some may believe as there are very few others who could have a legitimate need or use to acquire such a device to "see" into people's homes, businesses, offices or whatever by coming within the curtilage of a dwelling or other personal private indoor place and press the device against an exterior wall to use radar to check for the presence of occupants and giving those just pressing this device against exterior walls the ability to track one's every breath and movement inside one's own home, business or wherever claimed by the maker of the device to extend to a tracking distance of more than fifty feet inside the structure.
Nevertheless the Ninth Amendment editorial board does recognize that such a device doubtless does have some legitimate uses in some instances but only if in lawful hands properly authorized with a warrant or some very exigent circumstances as clearly delineated by official legal opinions IN ADVANCE as well as being regulated in its possession and use even possibly to the point of being licensed given already such clear evidence of its apparently nationwide illegal unconstitutional use for three years now by rogue law enforcement from the federal to the local level which until this time was not known to the Ninth Amendment nor is it known at this time what may be the extent of criminal use of the device which inevitably can be expected to find its way into the wrong hands
Moreover when it is misused those wronged whether by supposed "law enforcement" as well as criminals in our lay opinion where possible might consult their properly licensed attorney about the possibility of initiating legal demands and/or actions against those in the supply chain of such devices as well as in the case of law enforcement unlawful use the community governments responsible legally for their conduct. These federal and local law enforcement agencies according to the USA Today article linked to below largely have secretly used these devices to see people through their walls into their homes since at least 2012. USA Today notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has previously imposed warrant requirements on law enforcement dogs sniffing around houses, law enforcement using thermal imaging to see into homes, and even earlier expressed significant concerns about the warrantless use of this radar device to see into homes.
The Ninth Amendment brings this to the attention of readers for their information and out of concern that just as with police use of wiretaps, searches of cars, dwellings and so on that this must be a public issue specifically with clear legal guidance. Somehow it seems however that this issue has gone "under the radar" (bad pun) because law enforcement has up until now apparently tried its best to keep its use "secret" as USA Today euphemistically reports or probably more accurately law enforcement aware of likely legal "impediments" has deceived prosecutors, courts and others who would demand that the use of such devices to the extent permitted must be consistent with legal requirements to be determined.
This would seem to be particularly true since the Supreme Court already specifically has held (the Ninth Amendment in its lay opinion believes) that police generally cannot tap corded phone lines without a warrant, search dwellings generally without a warrant, nor creep around the curtilage (immediate privately owned area) of one's dwelling nor peer into the windows nor of course hang from the eaves and listen (eavesdropping). Persons needing legal advice on any of these issues must consult a properly licensed attorney as the Ninth Amendment cannot and does not purport to nor provide any legal advice whatsoever. Local ACLU chapters with "answer lines" as well as NOLO website information and books often can be a good source of some legal information.
The Ninth Amendment brings this to the attention of readers for their information and out of concern that just as with police use of wiretaps, searches of cars, dwellings and so on that this must be a public issue specifically with clear legal guidance. Somehow it seems however that this issue has gone "under the radar" (bad pun) because law enforcement has up until now apparently tried its best to keep its use "secret" as USA Today euphemistically reports or probably more accurately law enforcement aware of likely legal "impediments" has deceived prosecutors, courts and others who would demand that the use of such devices to the extent permitted must be consistent with legal requirements to be determined.
This would seem to be particularly true since the Supreme Court already specifically has held (the Ninth Amendment in its lay opinion believes) that police generally cannot tap corded phone lines without a warrant, search dwellings generally without a warrant, nor creep around the curtilage (immediate privately owned area) of one's dwelling nor peer into the windows nor of course hang from the eaves and listen (eavesdropping). Persons needing legal advice on any of these issues must consult a properly licensed attorney as the Ninth Amendment cannot and does not purport to nor provide any legal advice whatsoever. Local ACLU chapters with "answer lines" as well as NOLO website information and books often can be a good source of some legal information.
The USA today article linked to below (with audio) does include the following concerns about the device expressed by one federal appeals court:
Agents' use of the radars was largely unknown until December, when a federal appeals court in Denver said officers had used one before they entered a house to arrest a man wanted for violating his parole. The judges expressed alarm that agents had used the new technology without a search warrant, warning that "the government's warrantless use of such a powerful tool to search inside homes poses grave Fourth Amendment questions."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/19/police-radar-see-through-walls/P22007615/
Copyright 2015 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved
Copyright 2015 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved
The Ninth Amendment senses discouragement from over 200 million e-mails sent us by certain quarters that the Court, believed to be suffering from some new ultravirulent form of malignant dementia, brain fungus or rot, senility, and delusion but still able to groom themselves and speak (other than Justice Thomas), as it ravenously attacks any case before it that offers any opportunity to obliterate the last shreds of Americans' rights with nonsensical arguments and pithy factual examples based on no known reality. The Court thus has haphazardly obliterated the compact with the people that the US Constitution embodies.
The well-known fact for the day is the marginally sometimes true conventional wisdom that "the glass can be called half-empty or half-full" especially if its packaging is produced by most major American corporations, or alternatively, "it all depends upon how you look at it" unless you have say just been run over by a monster Waste Management garbage truck which next then backs up over your head, neck and chest with the required "beeping" warning.
Our point is that these sorts of little affronts to the Constitution such as the Court now finding it "reasonable" under the 4th Amendment for persons arrested for acts that would possibly have gotten you a "warning" back in grade school or even if just arrested by sloppy mistake as in the case at hand to justify a total-body strip search with government officials up close sniffing (but not touching) you and lingering around your body holes as they stare at your private parts in front of everyone yelling to "spread them" is no cause for anything such as say "armed revolution".
Think positive and even if you really do not enjoy parading around naked with police real close staring at you all over inside and out, pretend to yourself that you do. Imagine that this is how you would be spending the evening anyway. Especially if you are Mr. Justice Thomas (who reportedly did have to be physically restrained in the Court's famous closed-door conference when he became over-excited and attempted to act out the Court's written opinion,) In any case voila problem solved, though you probably should not get carried away and let this get you TOO excited as there is always time for that in one's more private time should one be so inclined and not all the representatives of the State may be so similarly oriented possibly leading to some kind of unfortunate misunderstanding.
As in they "suspected" you maybe are hiding an AK-47 or something in there and made a "furtive gesture". (Police like to tell creative stories like that in court if you are still alive to keep your future interesting.) No just take it easy and think of the rare opportunity to cavort naked with State officials as a gift. Well the Ninth Amendment editorial staff believes we may have been up for a few too many days now and hope anyway as we sign off this might have been a useful suggestion. God Bless America.
The comment below was submitted by the Ninth Amendment and so far as we know was not one of the 1,500 or so that was published in response to yesterday's front page New York Times latest article on the Court run amok. It here is shared with readers verbatim.
Ninth Amendment Comment To Times Not Published We Believe