Full-Body Scanners Deployed In Street-Roving Vans

pickens writes "Forbes reports that the same technology used at airport check points, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has also been rolling out on US streets where law enforcement agencies have deployed the vans to search for vehicle-based bombs. 'It's no surprise that governments and vendors are very enthusiastic about [the vans],' says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. 'But from a privacy perspective, it's one of the most intrusive technologies conceivable.' Rotenberg adds that the scans, like those in the airport, potentially violate the fourth amendment. 'Without a warrant, the government doesn't have a right to peer beneath your clothes without probable cause,' Rotenberg says. 'If the scans can only be used in exceptional cases in airports, the idea that they can be used routinely on city streets is a very hard argument to make.'"

Comments

If it violates an amendment

[houghi]

I wonder what they will change. The amendment or make the use of these illegal.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Darkness404]

Neither. The government these days can either selectively decide which parts of the constitution to follow, the courts can selectively decide how to "interpret" it and congress simply ignores the constitution. How many congressmen (excluding Ron Paul) really make an effort to decide whether something is constitutional or not? The PATRIOT act was blatantly unconstitutional yet it passed with little opposition, many, many other laws have been passed that were blatantly unconstitutional that the issue of the constitution wasn't even raised.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

"If" it violates an amendment?

In my uninformed (IANAL, etc.) opinion, this looks quite similar to--and if anything more egregious than--the circumstances in Kyllo v. United States, in which use of thermal imaging to look inside a private home was ruled unconstitutional without a warrant.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[crankyspice]

I wonder what they will change. The amendment or make the use of these illegal.

I'm reasonably sure this is already prohibited by the 4th Amendment, as interpreted by SCOTUS. In Kyllo v. U.S. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15840045591115721227&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr, the Court held: "obtaining by senseenhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," constitutes a search-- at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use." (A discussion of how the protection of a car differs from a house, legally, is beyond the scope of this post ;) but suffice to say there are at least some areas of the car and the person that are constitutionally protected...)

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither. If no one is allowed to wear clothes, then there is no "peeking under clothes" law being broken. Look for a "Only terrorists wear clothing" slogan on a billboard near you.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Darkness404]

Ok, so let me get this right...

These are the 98 U.S. senators for voted in favor of the US Patirot Act of 2001 (Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001.

Out of all the members, only 2 people didn't vote in favor of it. Yeah, sounds like a lot of opposition...

Yes, there were a few members of congress who voted against it, but if you really look at it, they simply wanted to opposed just about everything Bush was in favor of. They didn't make a conscious decision against it based on a constitutional point that they evaluate all their bills with, they saw that it was one of Bush's main points and voted against it.

And I don't proclaim that "all hope is lost" I continue to vote but in most cases with the exception of local elections the people who I vote for don't win because the vast majority of America is so entwined in the two party system that they completely miss the point and instead vote for parties that are two sides of the same coin and only disagree on insignificant issues.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[sjwaste]

Not to mention, Kyllo probably does not apply at border checkpoints. From the perspective of your constitutional rights, as my crim law prof always hammered home, border checkpoints are different.

I have absolutely no problem with using this technology at our borders, scanning cars parked on the departures curb at the airport, etc. I wouldn't want it roving through my neighborhood, though, and it probably won't because good luck prosecuting anything uncovered by this under normal circumstances (i.e. where Kyllo applies).

Re:If it violates an amendment

[Ruud Althuizen]

How many car bombs have we seen lately to justify these actions?

Re:If it violates an amendment

[johnhp]

Bullshit like this comment shows your ignorance and you ability to be affected by propaganda.

If you knew anything about Ron Paul, you would know that he is a unwavering supporter of the Constitution. That includes denouncing blatantly unconstitutional actions like spy vans, warrant-less wiretaps, etc.

To suggest that Ron Paul would allow states to do anything they like, in violation of the constitution, is so stupid it's almost hard to believe you're not intentionally trolling. His entire political basis for states rights is that *it's what the fucking Constitution says*. Like it or not, the federal government has expanded way, way beyond the powers given to it in the foundational framework of the union.

Want a federal government that's stronger than what the Constitution allows for? That's fine with me. I think I do too. But to shit on Ron Paul because wants to follow the fucking rules and insist that such changes be made properly through amendments, etc. rather than just bussed in by the crooked politicians de jour, is shockingly stupid.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[rhook]

The founding fathers never intended the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution to give the federal government the kind of power that it now uses the Commerce Clause as justification for. The whole point of the clause was to ensure that the states would be able to trade freely with one another and to ensure that the federal government could initiate trade with other countries and to allow the Indian tribes to have free trade with the states and federal government. The act does not say anything about allowing the federal government to regulate trade within a states borders, or interfere in people private lives (drug war, indecency laws, educational standards, minimum drinking age, etc). It is the sole basis of the federal governments claimed power to declare the war on drugs (a failed war that will never end), nobody seems to remember that alcohol prohibition took a constitutional amendment to begin and to end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Text_and_pairing

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ”

The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. It must be noted, however, that the Constitution is more clear about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases-

Re:If it violates an amendment

[crankyspice]

Refuse to open your trunk or glove box and see what happens. Refusal is a tacit admission of guilt and therefore is grounds for a search warrant.

Um, simply, no. At least with respect to the truck (since the glove box is within the 'wingspan' of the vehicle's occupant(s), it's been given different treatment). Speaking not just as a lawyer (although predominantly civil, I've handled criminal matters), but as a citizen who has encountered the police under such circumstances and has many good friends in law enforcement (I was the only member of a recent wedding party *not* wearing an ankle holster; bunch of G-Men...)...

". . . [A]ny reasonable officer would recognize that, under clearly established law, Freeman's refusal to consent to a warrantless search . . . could neither itself justify an arrest nor create probable cause . . ." Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 416 (5th Cir. Tex. 2007) (citing to SCOTUS, Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 213-214 (1981)).

Graves v. City of Coeur D'Alene, 339 F.3d 828, 842 (9th Cir. 2003): "[R]efus[al] to consent to search cannot be used to establish probable cause."

"It is well [**6] established that a refusal to consent to a search cannot be the basis for a finding of reasonable suspicion. Karnes v. Skrutski, 62 F.3d 485, 495-96 (3d Cir. 1995). In United States v. Williams, the court recognized that an officer's consideration of a defendant's refusal to consent to a search would violate the Fourth Amendment. 271 F.3d 1262, 1268 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1019, 122 S. Ct. 1610, 152 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2002)." United States v. Leal, 235 Fed. Appx. 937, 939 (3d Cir. Pa. 2007)

Etc.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[johnhp]

It sounds like you're unfamiliar with Ron Paul and his history. It's forgivable that you think he's just looking for publicity, but I encourage you to look at his record. He's been saying the same things, and voting the same way, for 30 years.

You should also take a look at his policies if you think that corporations are happy with Ron Paul (they're not) or that he has a lust for power (he's consistently humble and well mannered).

Re:If it violates an amendment

[johnhp]

The US government was never meant to be a collection of provinces ruled tightly by a central government. The territories were known as "states", which as you know is the term usually reserved for independent nations or nations in a collective, rather than for provinces as is the case with Canada.

The big problem with the federal government is that they stole way, way more power than they were ever intended to have. If the people or states had voted to give the federal government these powers, it wouldn't matter. But the government stole those powers, and continues to steal powers even in direct contradiction to the Constitution (Patriot Act, etc.).

Ron Paul has always said, if we need the federal government to do something, let's give them the power legally. We can't let them steal power and continue stealing power without objection. It's hard to imagine that so many people just accept that we're ruled by an all powerful central government, when our supposedly most sacred document explicitly says that such shit is not allowed.

With that said, I'd be happy to let the federal government handle some things, like universal health care, if it were properly accomplished according to rules setup for our country.

Re:If it violates an amendment

[johnhp]

You're seeing this all wrong. No one said that the Constitution is perfect and should remain unchanged. The only thing that has been said is that the federal government should be forced to operate within the terms of the Constitution. If new situations mean that the Constitution must be changed, then great. Some of the best parts of the Constitution are the changes that were made since it was written.

And you're wrong about the level of interaction between citizens in the early US states. They were tightly linked in terms of trade, culture and defense. In a crude 5th grade summary: tobacco and cotton came from the south, machined tools and clothing came from the north. Grain, lumber, gunpowder, lead, iron, coal, cattle, etc. were all shipped between states in a web of supply and demand.

Furthermore, news was not rare. The early US had several successful newspapers that were widely distributed.

Anyway the question of the best balance between state and federal power doesn't matter until we the people have some way to effect it. Our current way, the drafting and protection of laws and documents like the Constitution, don't mean shit if the federal government can do as they please without regard for the rules. That most important first step is to demand that everyone play by the rules as they are written. The second step is to debate what rules we should make or repeal.

Ok, honestly?

[Darkness404]

Ok, how many "violations" have these scanners found that could be linked to something serious. No, some guy who carries a pocketknife daily who forgot to take it out at the airport is not a real threat.

There are three reasons why we haven't had any "terrorist attacks" since 9/11

A) Terrorists are stupid. Its not easy to carry out an attack.

B) People are smarter. Pre-9/11 if your plane got hijacked you simply complied with the hijackers, landed in Cuba, and were on a flight back home later in the day. Today, if someone would try doing that, they would be stopped by the passengers. And unless there was a plane full of terrorists, the number of average passengers are much, much, much higher.

C) Terrorists are rare. There aren't billions of terrorists everywhere, yes, there are a few, but the number of normal people outnumber them by far which makes stopping them very easy.

9/11 was a one shot deal and only was successfully carried out because prior to that the standard operating procedure for dealing with a hijacker as a passenger was to let them do whatever they want and try to survive because they weren't crashing the hijacked planes in buildings.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing:

D) There is no need for a real incident. The first worked beyond Bin Laden's wildest dreams. All it needs to keep Americans locked up is the occassional shoe or underpants 'bomber'. The US politicians will then do all that is necessary to destroy America.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Darkness404]

You mean like the "Times Square Bomber" which um, failed to detonate?

It sounds easy on paper but history tells something radically different.

Re:Ok, honestly?

[Jafafa Hots]

Another thing is... they screen all the passengers going on the planes.

But they don't screen the fucking MAIL being loaded into the plane's cargo hold.

Wanna have fun as a terrorist? Go in the airport, stand in line and watch all the passengers take off their shoes, show that their bottle of hair gel is only 3 ounces, no more, and have their jockstrap scanned... then wander over to the window and watch your first class USMail "present to Grandma" get loaded on the same plane.

Since over 95% of the population approves

[countertrolling]

Who am I to argue? To all of you fools who believe it can't get any worse, I can only say, step outside the door. You haven't seen shit.

A bad idea...

[Magee_MC]

"The Z Backscatter Vans, or ZBVs, as the company calls them, bounce a narrow stream of x-rays off and through nearby objects, and read which ones come back."

A doctor needs informed consent to do an X-ray because of the risk from radiation. Why do these people think that they can irradiate people just because they want to? At least, as I understand it, at the airport you can decline to be irradiated and get searched the old fashioned way. With this you have no right to decline, or even knowledge that it happened.

Re:A bad idea...

[hedwards]

Because ZOMG teh terrorists are going to attack. There's no legitimate reason, and the back scatter technique is likely to be even worse than what's been acknowledged as while the dose is for the whole body, the concentration of it ends up just inside the skin. Meaning that while it might be an acceptable amount of total radiation, it's focus in an area where you're at a heightened risk of skin cancer.

Personally, I won't be flying again until some sanity has returned. Choosing between being assaulted with radiation or assaulted by TSA staff is not what I'd consider a reasonable function of government. In normal contexts that would be regarded as threat of violence and intimidation so that you allow them to take indecent liberties with your body. It isn't a question as to whether or not it's a violation of the 4th, it's a question of why we're even having to ask.

Re:A bad idea...

[mysidia]

Aren't there electronic devices that can detect X-rays?

Perhaps they could be countered by emitting an EM burst or EMP in the direction X-rays were detected in.

Can't wait for...

[geogob]

..."Google X-ray backscatter view". Germans are really going to love that one!

Different device, same theory

[davmoo]

SCOTUS ruled several years ago (and I'm too lazy to get a link to the ruling right now) that law enforcement could not use things like infrared and thermal imaging of a house to detect pot-growing operations without a warrant. Their ruling was something to the effect of "If a person can't see it from the street without using fancy equipment, it needs a warrant".

This is obviously different technology, but I fail to see how this would be any different in the eyes of SCOTUS and that ruling.

Vancouver olympics

[future assassin]

They were using the x ray vans in Vancouver. I know one person who works as a delivery driver and he got pulled over downtown Van for having several 24L bottles of liquid in his van. Also they were looking for other things too as I also know of one person busted for having 10+ lb of weed in the car while driving through an area where the vans patrolled.

Re:not only that

[lgw]

There is no minimun safe threshhold for ionizing radiation. The danger is cumulative across your lifetime. Radiation-related workplace safety regulations all take this into account. Some of the full-body scanners for airports use microwaves instead of X-rays, and so don't have this concern (though there may still be cause for concern).

This isn't some debatable area where there's no good evidence, but more reasearch might be helpful, like cell phone radiation. The effects of ionizing radiation is well-studied, and never safe at any level. There's a reason the dental technician leaves the room when she takes your dental X-rays, you know.